Moralia, in fifteen volumes, with an English translation by Frank Cole Babbitt

PLUTARCH

MORALIA
VOLUME ΧΙ PART |

Translated by
HAROLD CHERNISS

IEEE Eeeeeeeeelr

PLUTARCH (Plutarchus), ca. ap 45—120,
was born at Chaeronea in Boeotia in cen-
tral Greece, studied philosophy at Athens,
and, after coming to Rome as a teacher in
philosophy, was given consular rank by the
emperor Trajan and a procuratorship in
Greece by Hadrian. He was married and
the father of one daughter and four sons.
He appears as a man of kindly character
and independent thought, studious and
learned.

Plutarch wrote on many subjects. Most
popular have always been the 46 Parallel
Lives, biographies planned to be ethical ex-
amples in pairs (in each pair, one Greek
figure and one similar Roman), though the
last four lives are single. All are invaluable
sources of our knowledge of the lives and
characters of Greek and Roman statesmen,
soldiers and orators. Plutarch’s many other
varied extant works, about 60 in number,
are known as Moralia or Moral Essays. They
are of high literary value, besides being of
great use to people interested in philoso-

phy, ethics and religion.

The Loeb Classical Library edition of the
Moralia is in sixteen volumes, volume XIII
having two parts. Volume XVI is a compre-
hensive Index.

rid

J

!

\
Ἂν
' τὴν "
eke |

i hae
Ca ers)

a

| ras ΕΝ ΜΝ

han

ἼΝ τ ὡ:
ne τ τς Ὁ
neti me

“WORAI th
oe χη sf

᾿ς ' VE ἵν
Ὄ

“τ οὐ
on ae Ar oh 4 τ
ora n 4

THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY

FOUNDED BY JAMES LOEB 1911

EDITED BY

JEFFREY HENDERSON

PLUTARCH
MORALIA

XIII

LCL 427

righ asad aaNet’ ya Ὁ

ae | τὰ gates ,
“woen παν ΔῊ ran

HOAATUIT

| AIGAROM
1+} τ ἣν
J
{
ese eG? |
| ~-

PLUTARCH

MORALIA

VOLUME XIII
PART I

WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY
HAROLD CHERNISS

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
LONDON, ENGLAND

Copyright © 1976 by the President and Fellows
of Harvard College
All rights reserved
First published 1976

LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY® is a registered trademark
of the President and Fellows of Harvard College

ISBN 978-0-674-99470-6

Printed on acid-free paper and bound by
Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, Michigan

CONTENTS

PREFACE vii
TRADITIONAL ORDER OF THE MORALIA Xxill
PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1

ON THE GENERATION OF THE SOUL
IN THE TIMAEUS 131

EPITOME OF “ON THE GENERATION OF THE
SOUL IN THE TIMAEUS 347

δ τλθλισαὶ wy ;
a uf due: i orf

mi)
vo

4 {? ΤῸ ea

“Aa nOM aut 40

*

Lien

\

a

-

|

ἢ ἐς ἫΝ

+0 ΚΟΥ ΚΑΛΗ͂Σ 5 cee eee

hs

Ὦ

ΤΗΣ

Bemba y wbsfres rari
A rive abs he ith a, Ana vg, Mie oF

Ὁ

thy

“equamit aa
oats 90470 ὃ,

ῃ
ἴω my
᾿ hae
: ὩΣ
ἘΣ. Ἢ
ἱ = we
τς ἡ, 4
rah
1a
A
“9
ἄς
Sue
“a
τ
ν᾿

PREFACE

Tue following are the manuscripts used for the edi-
tion of the six essays in this volume and the sigla
that refer to them :

A =Parisinus Graecus 1671 (Bibliotheque Nationale,
Paris)—a.p. 1296.

B =Parisinus Graecus 1675 (Bibliotheque Nationale,
Paris)—15th century.

E =Parisinus Graecus 1672 (Bibliotheque Nationale,
Paris)—written shortly after a.p. 1302.

}’ =Parisinus Graecus 1957 (Bibliotheque Nationale,
Paris)—written at the end of the 11th century.

J =Ambrosianus 881 - C 195 inf. (Biblioteca Am-
brosiana, Milan)—13th century.

X =Marcianus Graecus 250 (Biblioteca Nazionale di
S. Marco, Venice)—the first part (containing the
De Stoccorum Repugnantis) written in the 11th
century, the second part (containing the Pla-
tonicae Quaestiones) written in the 14th century.

d=Laurentianus 56, 2 (Biblioteca Laurenziana,
Florence)—15th century.

e=Laurentianus 70, 5 (Biblioteca Laurenziana,
Florence)—14th century.

f = Laurent. Ashburnham. 1441 (not 1444 as in Hubert-
Drexler, Moralia vi/1, pp. xv1 and xx) (Biblioteca
Laurenziana, Florence)—16th century.

vii

PREFACE

g =Vaticanus Palatinus 170 (Bibliotheca Apostolica
Vaticana, Rome)—15th century.

m =Parisinus Graecus 1042 (Bibliotheque Nationale,
Paris)—16th century.

n = Vaticanus Graecus 1676 (Bibliotheca Apostolica
Vaticana, Rome)—1l4th century (cf. Codices
Vatican Graect : Codices 1485-1683 rec. C. Gian-
nelli [1950], pp. 441-443).

r=Leiden B.P.G. 59 (Bibliotheek der Rijksuniver-
siteit, Leiden)—16th century (see p. 150, n. ὁ
in the Introduction to the De An. Proc. in Ti-
maeo).

t =Urbino-Vaticanus Graecus 100 (Bibliotheca Apo-
stolica Vaticana, Rome)—a.p. 1402.

u = Urbino-Vaticanus Graecus 99 (Bibliotheca Apo-
stolica Vaticana, Rome)—15th century.

v =Vindobonensis Philos. Graec. 46 (Nationalbiblio-
thek, Vienna)—15th century.

2 =Vindobonensis Suppl. Graec. 23 (Nationalbiblio-
thek, Vienna)—15th century.

a =Ambrosianus 859 - C 126 inf. (Biblioteca Am-
brosiana, Milan)—finished in αὐ. 1295 (cf.
A. Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thir-
teenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of
Italy {University of Illinois Press, 1972] i, pp. 81-

87).

β =Vaticanus Graecus 1013 (Bibliotheca Apostolica
Vaticana, Rome)—14th century.

y =Vaticanus Graecus 139 (Bibliotheca Apostolica
Vaticana, Rome)—written shortly after a.p.
1296.

6 =Vaticanus Reginensis (Codices Graeci Reginae
Suecorum) 80 (Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana,
Rome)-—15th century.

vill

PREFACE

ε =Codex Matritensis Griego 4690 (Biblioteca Nacio-
nal, Madrid)—14th century.

Bonon. =Codex Graecus Bononiensis Bibliothecae
Universitatis 3635 (Biblioteca Universitaria,
Bologna)-—14th century.

C.C.C. 99 =Codex Oxoniensis Collegii Corporis
Christi 99 (Corpus Christi College, Oxford)—
15th century. |

Escor. 72 =Codex Griego 2-I-12 de El Escorial (Real
Biblioteca de FE] Escorial)—15th and 16th cen-
turies (ff. 75'-87", which contain the De An. Proc.
in Timaeo, were written in the 16th century).

Escor. T-11-5 =Codex Griego T.11.5 de El Escorial
(Real Biblioteca de ΕἸ Escorial)—16th century.

Laurent. C. S. 180 =Laurentianus, Conventi Sop-
pressi 180 (Biblioteca Laurenziana, Florence)—
15th century.

Tolet. 51, 5=Toletanus 51, 5 (Libreria del Cabildo
Toledano, Toledo)—15th century.

Voss. 16 =Codex Graecus Vossianus Misc. 16 (1) =
Vossianus P 223 (Bibliotheek der Rijksuni-
versiteit, Leiden)—15th century.

In such matters as accent, breathing, crasis, elision
and spelling I have followed without regard to the
manuscripts the usage explained in the Introduction
to the De Facte (L.C.L. Moraha xii, pp. 27-28).

The readings of the Aldine edition I have taken
from a copy that is now in the library of The Institute
for Advanced Study (Princeton, New Jersey) and
that has on the title-page the inscription in ink,
—: Donati Jannoctii :—Ex Bibliotheca Jo. Huralti
Borstallerii : Jannoctii dono ; and from the margins
of this copy I have cited the corrections or con-
jectures which in a note at the end of the volume

1X

PREFACE

(pp. 1010 f.) * written in the same ink as the inscrip-
tion on the title-page are ascribed to Leonicus and
Donatus Polus.

For the editions and other works to which there is
frequent reference in the apparatus criticus and notes
the following abbreviations or short titles are
used :

Amyot =Les cuvres morales et philosophiques de
Plutarque, translatées de Gree en Frangois par
Messire Jacques Amyot,.. . corrigées et aug-
mentées en ceste presente édition en plusieurs
passages suivant son exemplaire, Paris, Claude
Morel, 1618.

Andresen, Logos und Nomos =Car] Andresen, Logos
und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das
Christentum, Berlin, 1935.

Armstrong, Later Greek . . . Philosophy =The Cam-
bridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval
Philosophy, edited by A. H. Armstrong, Cam-
bridge, 1967.

Babut, Plutarque de la Vertu Ethique =Plutarque de la
Vertu Ethique : Introduction, texte, traduction et
commentaire par Daniel Babut, Paris, 1969 (Biblio-
théque de la Faculté des Lettres de Lyon XV).

4 It is the same note as that quoted by R. Aulotte (A myot
et Plutarque [Genéve, 1965], p. 180) from the end (p. 877)
of the Basiliensis in the Bibliotheque Nationale (J. 693), the
title-page of which, he says, bears the inscription Donato
Giannotti.

ὃ This definitive edition has been compared with the first
edition, Les wuvres morales et meslées de Plutarque .. .,
Paris, Michel de Vascosin, 1572, and with Q/uvres Morales
et Mélées de Plutarque traduites du Grec par Jacques Amyot
avec des Notes et Observations de MM. Brotier et Vaul-
villiers, Paris, Cussac, 1784-1787 =Tomes XIII-XXII of
(Huvres de Plutarque ..., 25 vols., 1783-1805.

x

PREFACE

Babut, Plutarque et le Stotcusme =Daniel Babut, Plu-
tarque et le Stoicisme, Paris, 1969 (Publications
de l'Université de Lyon).

Basiliensis = Plutarcht Chaerone: Morala Opuscula . . .,
Basiliae ex Officina I’robeniana per H. Frobenium
et N. Episcopium, 1542.

Benseler, De Hiatu=G. E. Benseler, De Hiatu in
Scriptoribus Graecis, Pars I: De Hiatu in Oratort-
bus Attécts et Historicts Graecis Libri Duo, Friber-
gae, 1841.

Bernardakis = Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia recogno-
vit Gregorius N. Bernardakis, Lipsiae, 1888-
1896 (Bibliotheca Teubneriana).

Bidez-Cumont, Les Mages Hellénisés =Joseph Bidez
et Franz Cumont, Les Mages Hellénisés, 2 vol-
umes, Paris, 1938.

Bolkestein, Adversaria =Hendrik Bolkestein, Adver-
saria Critica et Exegetica ad Plutarcht Quaes-
tionum Convivalium Librum Primum et Secundum,
Amstelodami, 1946.

Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa=Adolf Bonhdffer,
Epictet und die Stoa : Untersuchungen sur stoischen
Philosophie, Stuttgart, 1890.

Bonhoffer, Die Etlik . . .=Adolf Bonhdffer, Die
Ethk des Stoikers Epictet, Stuttgart, 189+.

Bréhier, Chrysippe =Emile Bréhier, Chrysippe et l’an-
cien stoicisme, Paris, 1951 (nouvelle édition revue).

Bréhier, Théorie des Incorporels =Fmile Bréhier, La
Théorie des Incorporels dans l’ancien Stoicisme,
Paris, 1928 (deuxiéme édition). This was origin-
ally published in 1908 as a “ Thése pour le doc-
torat.”’ It was reprinted in 1962.

Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft =Walter Burkert,
Weisheit und Wissenschaft : Studien zu Pythagoras,

xi

PREFACE

Philolaos und Platon, Niirnberg, 1962 (Erlanger
Beitrige zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft X).
There is an English edition, “ translated with
revisions,” Lore and Science in Ancient Pytha-
goreanism (Harvard University Press, 1972) ;
but this appeared too late to permit the use of it
instead of the German original.

Cherniss, Artstotle’s Criticism of Plato . . .=Harold
Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the
Academy, Vol. I, Baltimore, 1944.

Cherniss, Crit. Presoc. Phil. =Harold Cherniss, Aris-
totle’s Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, Balti-
more, 1935.

Cherniss, 7'he Riddle =Harold Cherniss, The Riddle
of the Early Academy, Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1945.

Cornford, Plato's Cosmology =Plato’s Cosmology : The
Timaeus of Plato translated with a running com-
mentary by Francis Macdonald Cornford,
London/New York, 1937.

Diels-Kranz, Frag. Vorsok.6=Die Fragmente der
V orsokratiker, Griechisch und Deutsch von Her-
mann Diels, 6. verbesserte Auflage hrsg. von
Walther Kranz, 3 volumes, Berlin, 1951-1952
(later “ editions ” are unaltered reprints of this).

Doring, Megariker=Die Megariker, Kommentierte

Sammlung der Testimonien . . . vorgelegt von
Klaus Déring, Amsterdam, 1972 (Studien zur an-
tiken Philosophie 2).

Diibner =Plutarchi Chaeronensis Seripta Moralia.
Graece et Latine ed. Fr. Diibner, Paris, 1841.

Dyroff, Die Ethik der alten Stoa = Adolf Dyroff, Die
Ethik der alten Stoa, Berlin, 1897 (Berliner
Studien fiir classische Philologie u. Archaeologie,
N.F. 2ter Band).

xii

PREFACE

Dyroff, Programm Wiirzburg, 1896 =Adolf Dyroff,
Ueber die Anlage der stoischen Biicherkataloge, Pro-
gramm des K. Neuen Gymnasiums zu Wiirz-
burg fiir das Studienjahr 1895/96, Wiirzburg,
1896.

Florduy, Sostalphilosophie =Eleuterio Elorduy, Dre
Soztalphilosophie der Stoa, Grafenhainichen, 1936
( =Philologus, Supplementband XXVIII, 3).

Fmperius, Op. Philol.=Adolpht Emperu Opuscula
Philologica et Historica Amicorum Studio Collecta
edidit I°. G. Schneidewin, Géttingen, 1847.

Festa, Stoic: Anticht = I Frammentt degh Stoict Antichi or-
dinati, tradotti e annotati da Nicola Festa, Vol.
I e Vol. II, Bari, 1932-1935.

Giesen, De Plutarcht . . . Dtsputationibus =Carolus
Giesen, De Plutarch contra Stoicos Disputationi-
bus, Monasterii Guestfalorum, 1889 (Diss.
Miinster).

Goldschmidt, Le systéme stoicien = Victor Goldschmidt,
Le systéme stoicien et l'tdée de temps, Paris, 1953
(Seconde édition revue et augmentée, Paris,
1969).

Gould, The Philosophy of Chrysippus =Josiah B.
Gould, The Philosophy of Chrysitppus, Leiden,
1970 (Philosophia Antiqua XVII).

Grilli, Zl problema della vita contemplativa = Alberto
Grilli, Jl problema della vita contemplativa nel
mondo Greco-Romano, Milan/Rome, 1953 (Uni-
versita di Milano, Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia,
Serie prima: Filologia e Letterature Classiche).

Grumach, Physis und Agathon=Ernst Grumach,
Physis und Agathon in der alten Stoa, Berlin, 1932
(Problemata 6).

H. C. =the present editor.

xiii

PREFACE

Hahn, ‘De Plutarchi Moralium Codicibus ” =
Victor Hahn, “‘ De Plutarchi Moralium Codici-
bus Quaestiones Selectae,’’ Académie Polonaise :
Rozprany Akademu Umiejetnosci, Wydzial Filo-
logiczny, Serya ii, Tom xxvi (1906), pp. 43-
128.

Hartman, De Avondzon des Heidendoms =J. J. Hart-
man, De Avondzon des Heidendoms : Het Leven
en Werken van den Wijse van Chaeronea, 2 vol-
umes, Leiden, 1910.

Hartman, De Plutarcho =J. J. atta, De Plutarcho
Scriptore et Philosopho, Lugduni-Batavorum,
1916.

Heath, Aristarchus of Samos =Sir Thomas Heath,
Aristarchus of Samos, The Ancient Copernicus, Ox-
ford, 1913.

Heath, History =Sir Thomas Heath, A History of
Greek Mathematics, 2 volumes, Oxford, 1921.
Heath, Manual =Sir Thomas L. Heath, A Manual of

Greek Mathematics, Oxford, 1931.

Helmer, De An. Proc. =Joseph Helmer, Zu Plutarchs
‘“ De animae procreatione in Timaeo’”’: Ein. Beitrag
gum Verstiéndnis des Platon-Deuters Plutarch,
Wiirzburg, 1937 (Diss. Miinchen).

Hirzel, Untersuchungen =Rudolf Hirzel, Untersuch-
ungen zu Cicero's philosophischen Schriften, 3
volumes, Leipzig, 1877-1883.

Holtorf, Plutarcht Chaeronensis studia ... =Herbertus
Holtorf, Plutarchi Chaeronensis studia in Platone
explicando posita, Stralesundiae, 1913 (Diss.
Greifswald).

Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1 =Plutarcht Morala Vol.
VI Fase. 1 recensuit et emendavit C. Hubertt,
additamentum ad editionem correctiorem col-

XiV

PREFACE

legit H. Drexler, Lipsiae, 1959 (Bibliotheca
Teubneriana).

Hutten =Plutarcht Chaeronensis quae supersunt omna
. . . opera Joannis Georgi Hutten, Tubingae,
1791-1804.

Jagu, Zénon=Amand Jagu, Zénon de Citttum : Son
Réle dans lVétablissement de la Morale stoicienne,
Paris, 1946. 3

Joly, Le theme . .. des genres de vie =Robert Joly,
Le Théme Philosophique des Genres de Vie dans
VAntiquité Classique, Bruxelles, 1956 (Académie
Royale de Belgique, Mémoires de la Classe des
Lettres, Tome XXIX, fasc. 3).

Jones, Platonism of Plutarch =Roger Miller Jones,
The Platontsm of Plutarch, Menasha (Wisconsin),
1916 (Diss. Chicago). References are to this edi-
tion, in which the pagination differs somewhat
from that of the edition of 1915.

Kaltwasser =Plutarchs moralische Abhandlungen aus
dem Griechischen iibersetzt von Joh. Fried. Sal.
Kaltwasser, Frankfurt am Main, 1783-1800 =
Plutarchs moralisch-philosophische Werke iiber-
setzt von J. F. 5, Kaltwasser, Vienna/Prague,
1796 ff.

Kilb, Ethische Grundbegriffe=Georg Kilb, Ethische
Grundbegriffe der alten Stoa und thre Ueberiragung
durch Cicero im dritten Buch de finitbus bonorum et
malorum, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1939 (Diss. Frei-
burg i.Br.).

Kolfhaus, Plutarchti De Comm. Not. =Otto Kolfhaus,
Plutarchi De Communibus Notitis Librum Genui-
num esse demonstratur, Marpurgi Cattorum, 1907
(Diss. Marburg). |

Kramer, Arete=Hans Joachim Krimer, Arete bei

XV

PREFACE

Platon und Aristoteles : Zum Wesen und sur Ge-
schichte der platonischen Ontologie, Heidelberg,
1959 (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. K1.,
1959, 6).

Kramer, Getstmetaphystk =Hans Joachim Kramer,
Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik : Untersuch-
ungen zur Geschichte des Platonismus zwischen
Platon und Plotin, Amsterdam, 196-4.

Krimer, Platonismus =Hans Joachim Krimer, Plato-
nsmus und hellenistische Philosophie, Berlin/New
York, 1971.

L.C.L. =The Loeb Classical Library.

Latzarus, Idées Religieuses =Bernard Latzarus, Les
Idées Religteuses de Plutarque, Paris, 1920.

Madvig, Adversaria Critica =Jo. Nic. Madvigii Ad-
versaria Critica ad Scriptores Graecos et Latinos, 3
volumes, Hauniae, 1871-1884 (Vol. 1 : Ad Scrip-
tores Graecos).

Mates, Stoc Logic =Benson Mates, Stoic Logic, Ber-
keley/Los Angeles, 1953.

-Maurommates -- Πλουτάρχου περὶ τῆς ἐν Τιμαίῳ ψυχο-
γονίας, ἐκδόντος καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀρχαίαν συνέχειαν ἀπο-
καταστήσαντος ᾿Ανδρέου 4. Μαυρομμάτου Kop-
κυραίου, Athens, 1848.

Merlan, Platonism to Neoplatonism =Philip Merlan,
From Platonism to Neoplatonism, second edition,
revised, The Hague, 1960. The later “ edi-
tions’ are merely reprints of this; the first
edition was published in 1953.

Moutsopoulos, La Musique ... de Platon =Kvanghélos
Moutsopoulos, La Musique dans I’(kuvre de
Platon, Paris, 1959.

B. Miller (1870) =Berthold Miiller, “ Eine Blatter-

xVl

PREFACE

vertauschung bei Plutarch,” Hermes iv (1870),
pp. 390-403.

B. Miiller (1871) =Berthold Miller, “ Zu Plutarch
περὶ ψυχογονίας,᾽᾿ Hermes v (1871), p. 154.

B. Miller (1873) =Berthold Miiller, Plutarch iiber die
Seelenschépfung im Timaeus, Gymnasium zu St.
Elisabet, Bericht tiiber das Schuljahr 1872-1873,
Breslau, 1873.

Nogarola =Platonicae Plutarchi Cheronet Quaestiones.
Ludovicus Nogarola Comes Veronensis vertebat,
Venetiis apud Vincentium Valgrisium, 1552.

Pearson, Fragments =A. C. Pearson, The Fragments
of Zeno and Cleanthes nith Introduction and Ex-
planatory Notes, London, 1891.

Pohlenz, Moralia i=Plutarchi Moralia, Vol. I re-
censuerunt et emendaverunt W. R. Patont et
I. Wegehauptt. Praefationem scr. M. Pohlenz,
Lipsiae, 1925 (Bibliotheca ‘Teubneriana).

Pohlenz, Moralia vi/2 =Plutarchi Moralha, Vol. VI,
Fase. 2 recensuit et emendavit M. Pohlenz,
Lipsiae, 1952 (Bibliotheca Teubneriana).

Pohlenz-Westman, Moralia vi/2 =Plutarcht Moralza,
Vol. VI, Fasc. 2 recensuit et emendavit M. Poh-
lenz. Editio altera quam curavit addendisque in-
struxit R. Westman, Lipsiae, 1959 (Bibliotheca
Teubneriana).

Pohlenz, Grundfragen =Max Pohlenz, Grundfragen
der stoischen Philosophie, Géttingen, 1940 (Ab-
handlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Géttingen, Phil.-Hist. K]., Dritte Folge Nr. 26).

Pohlenz, Stoa =Max Pohlenz, Die Stoa : Geschichte
einer geistigen Bewegung, 2 volumes, Gottingen,
1948-1949 (ii =2. Band: Erlduterungen, 4. Auf-
lage, Zitatkorrekturen, bibliographische Nach-

XVil

PREFACE

trige und ein Stellenregister von H.-Th. Jo-
hann, 1972). |

Pohlenz, Zenon und Chrysipp =M. Pohlenz, Zenon und
Chrysipp, Gottingen, 1938 (Nachrichten von der
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Géttingen,
Phil.-Hist. Kl., Fachgruppe I, Neue Folge:
Band II, Nr. 9) =Max Pohlenz, Klezne Schriften
i,spp. 1438.

Problems in Stoicism = Problems in Stovcasm edited by
A. A. Long, London, 1971.

R.-E. =Paulys Realencyclopddie der classischen Alter-
tumsnissenschaft . . ., Stuttgart, 1894-1972.
Rasmus, Prog. 1872 =Eduardus Rasmus, De Plutarcha

Libro qui wnscribitur De Communibus Notitizs Com-
mentatio, Programm des Friedrichs-Gymnasiums
zu Frankfurt a.O. fiir das Schuljahr 1871-1872,

Frankfurt a.O., 1872.

Rasmus, Prog. 1880 =Eduardus Rasmus, Jn Plutarch
librum que inscribitur De Stoicorum Repugnantis
Coniecturae, Jahres-Bericht iiber das vereinigte
alt- und neustadtische Gymnasium zu Branden-
burg von Ostern 1879 bis Ostern 1880, Branden-
burg a.d.H., 1880.

Reiske =Plutarcht Chaeronensis, Quae Supersunt, Om-
nia, Graece et Latine .. . lo. Iacobus Reiske,

‘Lipsiae, 1774-1782 (Vols. VI-X [1777-1778] :
Opera Morala et Philosophica).

Rieth, Grundbegriffe =Otto Rieth, Grundbegriffe der
stoischen Ethik : Eine traditionsgeschichthche Un-
tersuchung, Berlin, 1933 (Problemata 9).

Robin, Pyrrhon = Léon Robin, Pyrrhon et le Scepticisme
Grec, Paris, 1944.

S.V.F. =Stowcorum Veterum Fragmenta collegit loannes
ab Arnim, 3 volumes, Lipsiae, 1903-1905.

XVill

PREFACE

Sambursky, Physics of the Stoics =S. Sambursky, Phy-
sics of the Stoics, London, 1959.

Schafer, Ein friihmittelstoisches System =Maximilian
Schafer, Hin friihmittelstoisches System der Ethik
bet Cicero, Munich, 1934.

Schmekel, Philosophie der mittleren Stoa = A. Schmekel,
Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa in ihrem ge-
schichtlichen Zusammenhange dargestellt, Berlin,
1892.

Schroeter, Plutarchs Stellung zur Skepsis =Johannes
Schroeter, Plutarchs Stellung zur Skepsis, Greifs-
wald, 1911 (Diss. Kénigsberg).

Stephanus =Plutarcht Chaeronensis quae extant opera
cum Latina interpretatione . . . excudebat Henr.
Stephanus, Geneva, 1572.

Taylor, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus =A. E. Tay-
lor, A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Oxford,
1928. f

Thévenaz, L’Ame du Monde=Pierre Thévenaz,
L’ Ame du Monde, le Devenir et la Matiére chez
Plutarque avec une traduction du traité “᾿ De la
Genése de l’ Ame dans le Timée’’ (1176 partie), Paris,
1938.

Treu, Lampriascatalog =Max Treu, Der sogenannte
Lampriascatalog der Plutarchschrifien, Walden-
burg in Schlesien, 1873.

Treu, Ueberleferung i, ii, and iii = Max Treu, Zur Ge-
schichte der Ueberheferung von Plutarchs Moralia i
(Programm des Stadtischen evangel. Gymna-
siums zu Waldenburg in Schlesien 1877), ii
(Programm des Stidtischen Gymnasiums zu
Ohlau 1881), iii (Programm des K@nigl. Fried-
richs-Gymnasiums zu Breslau 1884).

Turnebus, Plutarchi de procreatione = Plutarchi dialogus

xix

PREFACE

de procreatione tn Timaeo Platonis Adriano Tur-
nebo interprete, Parisiis, 1552.

Usener, Epicurea = Epicurea edidit Hermannus Use-
ner, Lipsiae, 1887.

Valgiglio, De Fato =Ps.-Plutarco De Fato (περὶ εἷ-
pappevns) : Introduztone testo commento traduztone
di Ernesto Valgiglio, Rome, 1964.

van Straaten, Panétsus =Modestus van Straaten,
Panétius : sa vie, ses écrits et sa doctrine avec une
édition des fragments, Amsterdam, 1946. The
third part of this book, the text of the fragments
(pp. 325-393), is replaced by Panetu Rhodu Frag-
menta collegit tertioque edidit Modestus van
Straaten O.E.S.A., editio amplificata, Leiden,
1962 (Philosophia Antiqua V).

Verbeke, Kleanthes =G. Verbeke, Kleanthes van Assos,
Brussel, 1949 (Verhandelingen van de K. Vlaamse
Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en
Schone Kunsten van Belgié, Ki. der Letteren,
XI [1949], No. 9).

Volkmann, Philosophie des Plutarch =Richard Volk-
mann, Leben, Schriften und Philosophie des Plu-
tarch von Chaeronea, Zweiter Teil: Philosophie
des Plutarch von Chaeronea, Berlin, 1869.

Wegehaupt, Plutarchstudien =Hans Wegehaupt, Plu-
tarchstudten in ttalienischen Bibliotheken, Hihere
Staatsschule in Cuxhaven, Wissenschaftliche
Beilage zum Bericht iiber das Schuljahr 1905/
1906, Cuxhaven, 1906.

Wegehaupt, “ Corpus Planudeum’’ =Hans Wege-
haupt, ‘ Die Entstehung des Corpus Planudeum
von Plutarchs Moralia,” Sttzungsberichte der K.
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1909,
2. Halbband, pp. 1030-1046.

XX

PREFACE

Weische, Cicero und die Neue Akademie = Alfons
Weische, Cicero und die Neue Akademie : Unter-
suchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte des an-
ttken Skeptizismus, Miinster Westf., 1961 (Orbis
Antiquus 18).

Weissenberger, Die Sprache Plutarchs i and ii =B.
Weissenberger, Die Sprache Plutarchs von Chae-
ronea und die pseudoplutarchtschen Schriften I. Teil
(Programm des K. hum. Gymnasiums Straubing
fiir das Schuljahr 1894/1895), II. Teil (Programm
des K. hum. Gymnasiums Straubing fir das
Schuljahr 1895/96), Straubing, 1895 and 1896.

Westman, Plutarch gegen Kolotes =Rolf Westman,
Plutarch gegen Kolotes : Seine Schrift “ Adversus
Colotem ”’ als philosophiegeschichtliche Quelle, Hel-
singfors, 1955 (Acta Philosophica Fennica, Fasc.
vii, 1955).

Witt, Albinus =R. E. Witt, Albinus and the History of
Middle Platonism, Cambridge, 1937 (Transactions
of the Cambridge Philological Society, Vol. vii).

Wyttenbach =Plutarcht Chaeronensis Morala, id est
Opera, exceptis Vitis, Reliqua . . . Daniel Wytten-
bach, Oxonii, 1795-1830 (Wyttenbach, Animad-
versiones =Vols. vi and vii; Index Graecitatis =
Vol. viii).

Xylander =Plutarcht Chaeronensis omnium, quae ex-
stant, operum Tomus Secundus continens Moralia
Gulielmo Xylandro interprete, Francofurti, 1599.
At the end of this volume, separately paged,
there are Xylander’s annotations followed by
those of Stephanus and then variant readings
ascribed to Turnebus, Vulcobius, Bongarsius,
and Petavius as well as those of the Aldine and
the Basiliensis. |

xxi

PREFACE

Zeller, Phil. Griech. =Eduard Zeller, Die Philosophie

Xxii

der Griechen in threr geschichthchen Entnicklung, 3
parts in 6 volumes, Leipzig, 1920-1923 (last re-
vised editions): I/1 and 2, 6. Auflage hrsg. von
Wilhelm Nestle ; II/1, 5. Auflage mit einem An-
hang von Ernst Hoffmann ; II/2, 3. Auflage (4.
Auflage =Obraldruck) ; III/1, 4. Auflage hrsg.
von Eduard Wellmann ; III/2, 4. Auflage.

THE TRADITIONAL ORDER or tue Booxs of
the Moralia as they appear since the edition of
Stephanus (1572), and their division into volumes
in this edition.

he

LL.

It].

De liberis educandis (Περὶ παίδων ἀγωγῆς)

Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat
(Πῶς δεῖ τὸν νέον ποιημάτων ἀκούειν)

De recta ratione audiendi (Περὲ τοῦ ἀκούειν)

Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur
(Πῶς av τις διακρίνεις τὸν κόλακα τοῦ φίλου).

Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus
(Πῶς dv τις αἴσθοιτο ἑαυτοῦ προκόπτοντος ἐπ᾽
ἀρετῇ)

De capienda ex inimicis utilitate (Πῶς ἄν τις
ὑπ᾽ ἐχθρῶν ὠφελοῖτο)

De amicorum multitudine (Περὶ πολυφιλία)

De fortuna (Περὶ τύχης)

De virtute et vitio (Περὲ ἀρετῆς καὶ ἐ καλοί]

Consolatio ad Apollonium (Παραμυθητικὸς δρῦς
᾿Απολλώνιον).

De tuenda sanitate praecepta (γγιεινὰ πάρ.
αγγέλματα) .

Coniugalia praecepta (Γαμικὰ πόρῳ ἐλματα).

Septem sapientium convivium (Τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν
συμπόσιον) .

De superstitione ΓΕ οὶ δεισιδαιμονίας) .

Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata (° Amo-
φθέγματα βασιλέων καὶ oTparny γῶν)

NG ni Laconica (’ Αποφθέγματα Aa-
KWVLKG) .

Instituta Laconica (Ta qodausran ὑπαὶ ΨΩ, ίων
ἐπιτηδεύματα).

PAGE
1A

17
378

488

T5a
86B
93a
9%c
1008
10lr

122B
1384

1468
164£

172a
208a

236Fr
XXlli

THE TRADITIONAL ORDER

Lacaenarum aRAE eae (Λακαινῶν. ἀπο-

φθέγματα)
Mulierum virtutes (To υναικῶν » ἀρεταί)

ΙΝ, Quaestiones Romanae (Aira ‘Pwyaixa).

vi,

Vit.

XXIV

Quaestiones Graecae (Αἴτια ‘EAnuixa) .

Parallela Graeca et Romana (Συναγωγὴ στο-
ριῶν παραλλήλων “᾿ὔλληνικῶν καὶ ἹΡωμαϊκῶν)..

De shee Romanorum (Περὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων

νὰν ἐκ τις magni ‘fortuna aut virtute, li-
ae ii (Περὶ τῆς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τύχης ἢ ἀρετῆς,
λόγοι B’).

Bellone an pace ‘clariores fuerint Athenienses
(Πότερον ᾿Αθηναῖοι κατὰ πόλεμον ἢ y κατὰ σοφίαν
ἐνδοξότεροι)

. De Iside et Osiride (Περὶ Ἴσιδος καὶ Ὀσίριδος).

De E apud Delphos (Περὶ τοῦ EI τοῦ ἐν Δελφοῖς)

De Pythiae oraculis (Περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρᾶν ἔμμετρα
νῦν τὴν Πυθίαν)

De defectu oraculorum (Περὶ κῶν ἐκλελόίμότῶν
χρηστηρίων)

An virtus doceri possit (Ee διδακτὸν ἡ ἀῤῥγῃν.

De virtute morali (Περὶ τῆς ἠθικῆς cnr}

De cohibenda ira (Περὶ ἀοργησίας)

De tranquillitate animi (Περὶ εὐθυμίας)".

De fraterno amore (Περὶ φιλαδελφίας)

De amore prolis (Περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ ἔκγονα φιλο
oropyias)

An vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat (Εἰ
αὐτάρκης ἡ κακία πρὸς κακοδαιμονίαν). ἢ

Animine an corporis affectiones sint peiores
(Πότερον τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς 7 τὰ τοῦ Partie bee
χείρονα). ς

De garrulitate (Περὶ ἀδολεσχίας)

De curiositate (Περὶ πολυπραγμοσύνης).

De cupiditate divitiarum (Περὶ φιλοπλουτίας).

De vitioso pudore (Περὶ δυσωπίας) ;

De invidia et odio (Περὶ φθόνου καὶ jilatios)

De se ipsum citra invidiam laudando Sein τοῦ
ἑαντὸν ἐπαινεῖν epic ing :

De sera numinis vindicta (Περὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ
θείου βραδέως τιμωρουμένων)

PAGE

240c
249r
2638p
2010

305A
3168

326pD

345c
3551.
3840

9940

4095
439 4
4400
459:
4645
478A

493A
498
5008
5028
515s
523c
528c
5368
5394

5484

VI.

ΙΧ.

THE TRADITIONAL ORDER

De fato (Περὶ εἱμαρμένης) .

De genio Socratis(Ilepi τοῦ pw eet: US δαιμονίου)

De exilio (Περὶ φυγῆς).

Consolatio ad uxorem (Παραμυθητικὸς πρὸ τὴν
γυναῖκα).

Quaestionum convivalium libri vi ἔδυ πεν.
κῶν προβλημάτων βιβλία s’) ;

I, 612c; II, 6298; III, 6445; IV, 659E : V,
672} ; VI, 6864

Quaestionum convivalium libri iii (Συμποσια-
κῶν προβλημάτων βιβλία γ᾽) ᾿

VII, 697c ; ait’ 716pD; Tx, 736¢

Amatorius Γ Epurixés)

. Amatoriae narrationes (’ Eparixal Senyfoets)

Maxime cum principibus philosopho esse dis-
serendum (Περὶ τοῦ ὅτι μάλιστα τοῖς ΠΡ
δεῖ τὸν φιλόσοφον διαλέγεσθαι)

Ad principem ineruditum (Πρὸς ἡγεμόνα ἀπαί-
δευτον) .

An seni respublica gerenda sit (Ri apeoBurépw
πολιτευτέον)

Praecepta gerendae reipublicae (Tloeruxe.
παραγγέλματα

De unius in republica dominatione, populari
statu, et paucorum imperio (Περὲ μοναρχίας
καὶ δημοκρατίας καὶ ὀλιγαρχίας

De vitando aere alieno (Περὶ τοῦ μὴ Sit» Sadel-
ζεσθαι).

oo ho τὸν oratorum (Tlépt γῶν. ϑέκα inré-
ρων

Comparationis Aristophanis et Menandri com-
mage (Συγκρίσεως ἜΝ καὶ Μεν-

υ ἐπιτομή)
XI. De ng: ae malignitate (Πφὶ τῆς Ἡροδότου

κακοηθείας)

*De placitis philosophorum, libri v ( Περὶ τῶν

ἀρεσκόντων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, βιβλία €’) .
Quaestiones naturales (Αἰτίαι φυσικαί)

XII. De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet (Περὶ τοῦ

ἐμφαινομένου προσώπου τῷ κύκλῳ τῆς σελή-

νης)

PAGE
5688

575A
J99A

6084
612c

697c
1488
T71E
1104.
7796
783A
7984

826A
597}
8328

8534
854E
8140
9116

9204

* This work, by Aétius, not Plutarch, is omitted in the current edition.

XXV

XITI,

XIII,

XIV.

THE TRADITIONAL ORDER

De primo frigido (Περὶ τοῦ πρώτως ψυχροῦ)

Aquane an ignis sit utilior (Περὶ τοῦ πότερον
ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ χρησιμώτερον).

Terrestriane an aquatilia animalia sint callidi-
ora (Πότερα τῶν ζῴων ἐς δα τὰ χερσαῖα
ἢ τὰ ἔνυδρα)

Bruta animalia ratione uti, sive Gryllus (Tlept
τοῦ τὰ ἄλογα λόγῳ χρῆσθαι)

De esu carnium orationes ii (Περὶ εἰσ κότος
λόγοι β΄)

Part I. Platonicae quaestiones Cane ae bn-
τήματα).

De animae procreatione i in Timaeo (Teg τῆς ἐν
Τιμαίῳ ψυχογονίας)

Compendium libri de animae procreatione in
Timaeo (Emrou7) τοῦ περὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ
ψυχογονίας)

Part II. De Stoicorum repugnantiis (Περὶ
Στωικῶν ἐναντιωμάτων)

Compendium argumenti Stoicos absur diora
poetis dicere. (Σύνοψις τοῦ ὅτι παραδοξότερα οἱ
Στωικοὶ τῶν ποιητῶν λέγουσι)

De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos (Ilepi
TOV κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν πρὸς τοὺς Σ;τωικούς)

Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum
(Ὅτι οὐδὲ ζῆν ἔστιν ἡδέως κατ᾽ *"Emixoupov)
Adversus Colotem (Πρὸς Κωλώτην ὑπὲρ τῶν

ἄλλων φιλοσόφων)

An recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum (Ei
καλῶς εἴρηται τὸ λάθε βιώσας)

᾿.}}6 musica (Περὶ μουσικῆς).

XV.
XVI.

XxXvVi

Fragments
General Index

PAGE
945E

955D

9594
985D
9934
ἘΜ
10124

1030bD
10334

0576
10588
1086c
1107p

1128a
1131a

PLATONIC QUESTIONS
(PLATONICAE QUAESTIONES)

INTRODUCTION

Or Plutarch’s works which, to judge by the titles
listed in the Catalogue of Lamprias, were devoted
particularly to the interpretation of Plato 5 only two
are extant, the Περὶ τῆς ἐν Τιμαίῳ ψυχογονίας (65)
and the ΠΠ᾿λατωνικὰ ζητήματα (136).

The term ζητήματα had come to be used in a quasi-
technical sense for problems or questions raised con-
cerning the meaning first of expressions or verses in
the text of Homer and then of specific passages in
other texts or of particular statements or opinions
or incidents, problems which with the solutions sug-
gested might be made available to interested readers
in the form that today would be called “ collected
notes ’’ but sometimes in that of a “symposium,” ?

* Nos. 65-68, 70, 136, and 221; cf. also on Academic
doctrine Nos. 64, 71 (=131 ὃ), 134, and especially No. 63.

® For the history of the term and genre, ζήτημα, cf.
A. Gudeman, &.-H#. xiii/2 (1927), cols. 2511, 46-2529, 34
(cols, 2525, 18-2527, 18 on Plutarch); H. Dorrie, Por-
phyrios’ “ Symmikta Zetemata ’’ (Miinchen, 1959), pp. 1-6 ;
K.-H. Tomberg, Die Kaine Historia des Ptolemaios Chennos
(Diss. Bonn, 1967), pp. 54-62; R. Pfeiffer, History of
Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968), pp. 69-71 and p. 263.
Dorrie (op. cit., p. 2) says that in the technical vocabulary
of philosophers the word was almost entirely avoided.
Nevertheless, Plutarch cites works by Chrysippus entitled
ἠθικὰ ζητήματα and φυσικὰ ζητήματα (De Stoic. Repug. 1046
ἢ and F and 1053 r-rF, De Comm. Not. 1078 © and 1084 pb);

2

PLATONIC QUESTIONS

a literary frame not inappropriate, since in intel-
lectual circles questions like these were proposed for
discussion by the company after dinner.* Plutarch
himself in his Symposzacs ὃ uses the term ζητήματα of
the questions or problems there propounded and
discussed,° of which several without their literary
embellishment could appropriately have been in-
cluded in the Platonic Questions,¢ just as all the latter
could have been used as material for the Symposzacs.

The Platonic Questions, as we have them, are ten
separate ζητήματα, each concerned with the mean-
ing of a passage or apparently related passages in
the text of Plato but unconnected with one another

----

a work entitled σύμμικτα ζητήματα is ascribed to Aristotle
(V. Rose, Aristotelis Fragmenta [1886], p. 17, # 168; cf.
P. Moraux, Les Listes Anciennes des Ouvrages d’ Aristote
[Louvain, 1951], p. 117, n. 17 [on pp. 118-119] and pp. 280-
281); and Porphyry (Vita Plotini, chap. 15, 18-21) says
that Eubulus wrote and sent from Athens συγγράμματα ὑπέρ
τινων Πλατωνικῶν ζητημάτων.

¢ Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 614 Α-Ἑ and 686 υ-Ὁ:
Aulus Gellius, vit, xiii, 1-12 and xvi, ii, 1-16 (especially
6-14).

δ For the literary form and “ historicity ᾿" of Plutarch’s
Symposiacs ef. J. Martin, Symposion (Paderborn, 1931), pp.
167-184; H. Bolkestein, Adversaria, pp. 1-46; K. Ziegler,
R.-F. xxi, 1 (1951), cols. 886, 40-887, 55.

¢ Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 645 c, 660 pv, 736 c, 737 ν.

4 Notably Quaest. Conviv. vii, 1 and 2; viii,2; and ix, 5.

¢ That they are just ten may be only an accident; but
ten is also the number of questions that Plutarch expressly
allocated to each book of the Symposiacs (ef. 612 5, 629 Ἐπ,
660 pn) save one, the ninth, which he begins with a special
apology for exceeding ‘‘ the customary ten ”’ (736 c).

7 Question VIII (1006 s—1007 £), for example, begins
with Timaeus 42 pv 4-5, considers the possible relation to
this of 40 8 8- 2, and then returns to interpret 38 c 5-6 in

3

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

by any transition and without any general introduc-
tion or conclusion to give the collection unity or to
suggest a reason for the sequence in which the ques-
tions are arranged. Had the sequence been deter-
mined by the subject-matter, II and IV would not
have been separated from each other by III and VI
would not have been placed between V and VII;
and, if by the source of the passages treated, III
and IX, which deal with the Republic, would have
come together, as would II, IV, V, VH, and VIII,
all five of which deal with the Timaeus. The ten
ζητήματα may not all have been written at one time
and for a single work. It is at least as likely that at
some time Plutarch put together ten separate notes
on Platonic passages that he had written at different
times and had found no suitable occasion to incor-
porate into his other compositions.” If this is so,
any indication of the relative chronology of one of

relation to expressions in Republic 506 E—509 vb and
Timaeus 37 n—39 5, By the remark at the end of VIII, 3
and the beginning of VIII, 4 Plutarch practically admits
that VIII is in fact two ζητήματα rather than one.

« Cf. what is said by Elias (dn Aristotelis Categorias,
p. 114, 13-14) of the σύμμικτα ζητήματα ascribed to Aristotle
and by Athenaeus (v, 186 e= Usener, Epicurea, p. 115, 9-11)
of the Symposium of Epicurus.

» Cf. what he says of his De Tranquillitate Animi at the
beginning of that essay (464 F): . . . ἀνελεξάμην περὶ
εὐθυμίας ἐκ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων ὧν ἐμαυτῷ πεποιημένος ἐτύγχανον.
Paccius had asked him also for something on the passages
of the Timaeus that require exegesis (464 ©), and Plutarch
probably had in those “‘ note-books ”’ of which he speaks
such things as our ζητήματα or the material for them. One
can well imagine that De Defectu Orae. 421 e—431 a (chaps.
22-37) is the elaboration of such a ζήτημα concerning Timaeus
55 c T—p 6 (cf. Κι. Ziegler, R.-E xxi/1 [1951], col. 834, 47-53).

4

PLATONIC QUESTIONS

the ten would not necessarily be pertinent to that
of the others.

That Plutarch had not himself been the first to
pose questions about these particular Platonic
passages is clear from the fact that he commonly dis-
cusses or refers to answers other than those he
finally gives as his own. That he had himself dis-
cussed at least one of them earlier is made certain by
the remark that his answer is τὸ πολλάκις ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν
λεγόμενον (1003 a). This is the answer to IV, which
is a complement of that of IT ® and together with it
gives in brief the interpretation that Plutarch was
later to set out in detail in the De Animae Procreatione
in Timaeo but himself says here had frequently been
stated earlier than IV.¢ There is no other indication
even of the relative chronology of any of these
ζητήματα unless the mistake in V, “ each of which
consists of thirty of the primary scalene triangles ”’
(1003 p) be thought to prove V earlier than De
Defectu Orac., where in 428 a this is corrected ; but
that would be a precarious inference, for the mistake
in 1003 ἢ is part of the interpretation of others to
which Plutarch then gives his own as an alternative.

The text of this work, No. 136 in the Catalogue of

¢ In IV he gives only his own answer. The authors of the
answers that he rejects are not identified more clearly than
by some such expression as δόξει δ᾽ αὐτόθεν (1001 D), ὡς
ὑπονοοῦσιν ἔνιοι (1003 c), Or οὗ . . . ἀποδιδόντες ἀγνοοῦσιν om...
(1008 5-ο).

> See also the end of VIII (1007 c-p); ef. Quaest. Conviv.
718 « and 719 a with H. Dorrie, Philomathes ...in Memory
of Philip Merlan (The Hague, 1971), pp. 40-42.

¢ So he begins De An. Proc. in Timaeo itself by saying
that it is to bring together in a single work τὰ πολλάκις εἰρημένα
Kal γεγραμμένα σποράδην ἐν ἑτέροις ἕτερα. .. . ᾿

5

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

Lamprias and No. 38 in the Planudean order, is here
printed on the basis of X J ga AB y E Ben Voss. 16
Bonon. C 3635 and Eseorial T-11-5, all of which I have
collated from photostats. Of these only XJ gE Be
and n contain the whole of the work ; and in E itself,
although the whole is written by a single hand, folio
606" has above the first column, which begins with
the words τοῦ νοητοῦ μόνον ἐστὶν ὁ νοῦς (1002 5),
the superscription 4 0 πλατωνικὰ ζητήματα ὧν οὐχ
εὑρέθη ἡ ἀρχή, through which in the same ink a line
has been drawn.? This same superscription occurs in
a A B Bonon. C 3635 Voss. 16 and Escorial T-11-5, in
all of which τοῦ νοητοῦ x.7.X. (1002 D) are the first
words of the work preserved,® and also in y, where
the first words, however, are τί δήποτε τὴν ψυχὴν
(1002 £), the beginning of Question IV.¢

* This was accurately described by Treu ( UVeberlieferung
i, p. 1x). Cf. Pohlenz, Jforaliad, p. x, n. 3 (p. x1); Wege-
haupt, Philologus, \xiv (1905), p. 396; Sandbach, Class.
Quart., xxxv (1941), p. 110; Manton, Class. Quart., xliii
(1949), p. 98.

» This is true also of §6=Vat.Reg.80 (cf. H. Stevenson,
Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vuticanae ... Codices Reginae
Suecorum et Pui PP. 11 Graeci [Romae, 1888], p. 63 and
Hahn, “ De Plutarchi Moralinm Codicibus,” p. 57) and of
Marcianus 259, in which latter, however, the text ends with
ἀλλὰ ἕτερον in 1008 a, where the first hand of n leaves off
(cf. Treu, Lampriascatalog, p. 23 and Hubert-Drexler,
Moralia vi/1, p. xtv). In Voss. 16 by an error in binding
the text of the work has been divided ; it appears on folios
Qt-10V and 26-28%.

¢ This is also the case with Laur. 80, 5 and Laur. 80, 22
(cf. Wegehaupt, Plutarchstudien, pp. 27-28 and ‘‘ Corpus
Planudeum,”’ p. 1034, n. 1), with Marcianus 248 (cf. Treu,
Lampriascatalog, p. 23 [where what is said of the beginning
in Parisinus 1671 =A, however, is a mistake]), with Tolet.
51, 5 (cf. Fletcher, Class. Quart., xxi [1927], pp. 166-167

6

PLATONIC QUESTIONS

If y was copied from A, as has been supposed,? the
scribe of y must purposely have omitted the end of
Question III (1002 p-£) which a and A preserve, to
begin with Question IV {τί δήποτε) and must also
have disregarded either purposely or inadvertently
the lacuna indicated in a and A between σωμάτων
and ὁ σίδηρος in 1005 c. Otherwise y differs from a
and A (uncorrected and corrected) in only six places,
none of which is decisive.’ Only once does y agree
with a against A (1005 ὁ [μέν τι : μέντοι -A, Esc.}).
Four times it agrees with A against a (1003 a [7:
ἡ -a.|, 1005 a [οὐρανὸν : ? -αἱ ; ἦκον -α, π ; εἶκον -A,
y and all other ss.], 1007 a [ἔκγονος : ἔγγονος -Α,
γ]» 1011 a [τὸν : τοῦ -a]) and twice with A? against
A! and a (1003 Ε [πασῶν : παθῶν -a, ΑἸ], 1005 c
[τρίψει : τῇ τρίψει -A?, y]). It appears, then, that
the scribe of y copied this work from A after A had
been corrected.

Since f contains the end of Question III (1002 p-r),
which is not in y, the source of 8 for this work cannot
have been y. Nor can it have been X, J, g, B, ε, n, or
E.¢ All these contain the beginning of the work,
and p. 170, n. 6), and with Parisinus 2076 (ff. 132¥-145Y),
which last was generously verified for me by M. Joseph
Paramelle of the “Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique.”

* Cf. B. Einarson and P. De Lacy, Class. Phil., xlvi(1951),
p- 103, col. 1 and V algiglio, De Fato, p. xu.

> 1003 B (σπέρματος : σώματος -y), 1006 D (λαμβάνοντας:
᾿ λαμβάνοντος “Yr, Ksc.? ; “λαμβάνοντα τὰ ΓᾺΡ Bie ἮΝ ἘΠ ἢ),
1008 c (περὶ ὦτα: eon τὰ ὦτα -y)s 1008 ν (λογιστικὸν :
λογικὸν -a, A, B, E, B, «), 1010 c (ἅλας : ἄλλας -y, J). In
the sixth (1006 A) γ has the negative ov which is erased in a
and cancelled in A; but this cancellation, a dot under the
ov, might easily have been overlooked.

¢ B and g are presumably younger than f anyway, being

7

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

which £ does not have and says has not been found ;
but besides that in one passage or another after the
point at which the text in 8 begins all of them lack
words that were present in 8 even before correction,”
as doa, A, and y also.® In more than a dozen places
where f originally agreed with a, A, E it has been
changed so that it agrees instead with the reading
of Bonon., which is frequently shared with X and n
and occasionally with J ore. In half a dozen of these
places words not present in a, A, E, and y have been
added by f? either in the margin or superscript
(1005 c-p, 1007 p [bis], 1010 c, 1010 p, and 1011 8).
In 1010 c B* has added in the margin ten words that
occur in X, ε, ἢ, Bonon., Voss., and Escor., nine of
which are omitted by J, g, a, A, y, E, and B. In
1005 c-p, where J, g, and y have σωμάτων. 6 σίδηρος
and where a lacuna of varying length between
σωμάτων and ὁ σίδηρος is indicated by a, A, E, B,
and £1, the five words ἐλυσπᾶν οὕτως ὑπὸ τοῦ 1]|λά-
twvos have been added in the margin by B?. These
five words with the last four deleted are in Bonon. ;
otherwise they are preserved—but with εἰλυσπᾶν in-
stead of iAvomwaév—only in X, ε, and n. Moreover, B

of the 15th century, whereas β is of the 14th; n, which has

generally been dated to the 15th century, is of the 14th

according to (Ὁ. Giannelli (Codices Vaticani Graeci [1980],
pp. 442-443).

2 This eliminates bine possibility that 8 might have been
copied from E before the lost beginning had been discovered
and added to that ms.

> ¢.g. 1005 a (ἅμα -omitted by n), 1006 a (οὐ -omitted by
X, ες ἢ [erased in a and cancelled in Α7), 1006 c (ἰλλομένην....
ἀνειλουμένην -omitted by J, g), 1009 B (Acyou... vac....
kat ~a, A, y, B), 1011 a (’OSuocda... vac.... od -X, a, A,
y, Εἰ, B, e).

8

PLATONIC QUESTIONS

has uncorrected readings that differ from those of a,
A, and E and agree with those of Bonon., shared
sometimes by X, J, n, or € as well (1006 p, 1007 c,
1009 a, 1009 B, 1010 B, 1010 Ρ, and 1011 a [ῤ16]) ;
and in the last of these places 8! agrees exactly with
Bonon. alone (λυγῶντα πρὸς τὴν τῶν προβάτων
συν... .). It is probable therefore that B was not
just corrected by reference to Bonon. but was copied
from the archetype of the latter.

Bonon. C 3635 not only has the end of QuEsTIoN
III, which is not in y, and words that are not in fp?
but also preserves words that are missing from X,
from J, and from a, A, y, E,e, and n.¢ Though very
often in agreement with a and A against J and some-
times against X or both X and J, it agrees at times
with X or J or both of them against a and A and
occasionally disagrees with all four—X, J, a and A.®

3 There are more than 35 places where Bonon. with a, A,
and X preserves words lacking in J, among which see 1003 B
(τῶν δὲ κυκλικῶν . . . τῶν εὐθυγράμμων), 1004 a (ὅτι τοίνυν. ..
τὸ εὐθύγραμμον), 1006 ς (ἰλλομένην . . . ἀνειλουμένην). For
words in Bonon. lacking in others see 6.5. 1003 8 (ὑπὸ τῆς
ψυχῆς omitted by X), 1005 κ (τὸ δ᾽ ἤλεκτρον... τὸν σίδηρον
omitted by ε), 1005 c-p (ἐλυσπᾶν . .. Πλάτωνος omitted by J, g,
y, a, A, Εἰ, B, β"), 1007 p (μὲν omitted by all except Bonon.,
Voss., Escor., 8? ; and ἐστι omitted by a, A, B', y, E, B, ες n),
1009 B (μερῶν μηθὲν ἅμα omitted by a, A, y, B), 1010 c
(κράτιστον ... eivar omitted by J, g, a, A, y, E, B), 1011 a
(λυγῶντα . . . συν omitted by X, a, A, y, E, B, €), 1011 B
(νὴ Δία omitted by J, g, a, A, β', y, Εἰ, B

δ Examples of this last case are 1011 a in the preceding
note, 1010 B (διάλεκτος : διάλογος -Bonon.), 1010 ἢ (μὴ omitted
by X, J, a, A); of agreement with X against a and A
1005 c-p, 1009 Β, 1010 c, and 1011 B in the preceding note
and 1006 c (τεταμένον) and 1009 a (76); of agreement with
J against a and A 1002 p (ἄλλα ἄλλοις), 1004 5 (μὲν omitted
by X, a, A), 1009 Ε (καθ᾽ αὑτὰ) ; of agreement with X and J

9

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

It must have been copied from a ms. which, though
mutilated at the beginning of the work in the same
way as a, had a text in some cases nearer to that of
X and in a few nearer to that of J than to that of a.

The text of Voss. 16, though for the most part
identical with that of Bonon., differs from it in seven-
teen places.* In six of these differences, moreover,
Voss. agrees with J} and in three others with n?;
and this suggests that Voss. was copied not from
Bonon. itself but possibly from the latter’s archetype
or a Ms. very much like it.

The same is true of Escor. T-11-5, which agrees
with Voss. against Bonon. eight times and with
Bonon. against Voss. seven times but disagrees with
both Bonon. and Voss. in 31 cases,¢ in two of which

against a and A 1006 pb (λαμβάνοντας), 1007 p (ἐστι omitted
by a, A), 1008 p (λογιστικὸν), 1011 a (τὰς omitted by a, A).

@ This is assuming that in 1005 c-p (where Hubert’s
apparatus is doubly in error) the line through οὕτως ὑπὸ
τοῦ Πλάτωνος was drawn by the first hand of Bonon. Other-
wise the differences would be eighteen.

> 1004 a (εὐθύγραμμοι : εὐθύγραμμον -J, g, Voss.); 1004 ἃ
(συναρμοττομένοις : συναρμοττόμενος -J, g, Voss.4); 1005 a
(ἀφιεμένῳ : ἐφιεμένῳ - 1, g, Voss., Escor.); 1005 ὁ (τῷ : τὸ τ΄,
g, Voss.); 1005 Ἐ-Ρ (πληθύοντες : πληθύνοντες -J, 5. Voss.,
Escor.); 1011 B (θεωρικὰ : θεωρητικὰ -J, g, Voss., Escor.) ;
1010 ς (Evnvos: εὔωνος -n, Voss.) ; 1011 a (παρὰ τοῖς : map’
οἷς -n, Voss.) 3; 1011 A (τῶν προβάτων ovv...: συν omitted
by nand Voss.). The last is one of the two passages adduced
by Pohlenz and Hubert (Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi, 1,
p. xiv); in the other, 1003 a, though Voss. disagrees with
Bonon. and others (συνυπῆρχον), its reading, συνυπάρχον, is
not that of J! as it is there said to be.

¢ Perhaps a dozen of these are errors of the scribe of
Escor. himself, one of which is interesting as a warning,
however, for it can be only by a coincidence that in 1004 a
Escor. omits seven words that are omitted by J and g but
are preserved by all other mss.

10

PLATONIC QUESTIONS

it agrees with others in the correct reading.* In
1011 a Escor. like Voss. and ἢ omits the prefix συν
preserved by Bonon. and β alone but alone has λέ-
γοντα instead of the λυγῶντα of these four mss., and
in 1003 a it alone has συνυπάρχουσιν instead of the
συνυπάρχον of Voss. and the correct συνυπῆρχον of
Bonon. Moreover, it alone has καὶ ἰλυσπᾶν in 1005 c,
παραλιπόντα μηθὲν καὶ in 1009 Β where Bonon. and
Voss. have μερῶν μηθὲν ἅ ἅμα καὶ, and in 1010 » ὁρῶ.
vac. 80... ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ὁμοῦ instead of their S50
μέλλων viv ee, τι.

In that part οὗ E that fills folios 606'-610' (τοῦ
νοητοῦ μόνον {1002 p]—to the end) and was copied
before the beginning of the work had been found
FE, never agrees with a against A. It agrees with
A, a” and others against αἱ thrice,® with A against a
eight times,° and with A? against a and A! twice 4;
but once it agrees with a! and A! against a and A as
corrected,’ and eight times it disagrees with both
a and A. One of these differences is a matter of
word-order and is changed by E? (1003 B), one is
the omission by E and B of two words that appear in
all other Mss. (1010 a: καθ᾽ αὑτὸ), and three concern

4 1004 B (ἐντάσει -E, B, n, Escor.), 1008 κε (ὃν -Escor.
with all except n, Bonon., Voss).

> 1002 Ἑ (δεῖ : δὴ -αἷ, €), 1009 D (τὸ πρῶτον omitted by a!),
1009 F (τὸν λέγοντα : λέγον -a!).

¢ In five of these cases E and A are wrong, though a is
right (1006 B [ὁ δὴ -a], 1007 a [ἔκγονος -a], 1007 F [πρότε-
pov -a], 1008 c [τιμωρίας -a], 1009 Ε [καὶ -a]); in two E and
A are right and a wrong (1003 a [ἢ -E, A] and 1011 a
[τὸν -E, ΑἸ): and in one all are wrong (1005 A [ἦκον -a?;
εἶκον Ἢ, ΑἸ).

4 1003 ΕἙ (πασῶν -E, A?) and 1005 c (τῇ τρίψει -E, A*).

“ In 1006 a the οὐ after πρότερον that is absent from X, ε,
n and is erased in a and cancelled in A is present in E.

11

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

the form of a single word ¢ ; but in two cases E with
B has a word that is in no other ms.,° and in 1009 B
there are in E three words, μερῶν μηθὲν ἅμα, that
are absent from the lacuna in a, A, y, and B and
occur only in X, β, e, n, Bonon., and Voss. The
scribe of E might have found these three words in
the ms. from which he later copied the beginning
of the work and might then have entered them here
in the lacuna that he had left ; but, if so, it is strange
that the scribe of B, whether he copied the whole
work from E or from the ms. whence E took the first
part of it, omitted just these three words and pre-
served exactly the lacuna of a, A,andy. Itis more
probable that the scribe of E copied the three words
in question and all this second part of the work from
a congener of a, which was also the source of A’s
corrections. °

In the first part of the work (999 c—1002 Ὁ), which
the scribe of E added later, there are 53 cases in
which E agrees with X against J ; and in fifteen of
these E preserves a word or words missing from J
(cf. 1000 a, c, and E; 1001 c and p; 1002 4), In
only two cases does E agree with J against X; and
in another, where it agreed with X, it was changed
so that E* agrees with J instead.¢ In eight cases

α 1004 B (ἐντάσει -E, B, ἢ, Escor.; ἐνστάσει -all other
MSS8.), 1004 c (κυκλοφορητικὴν : κυκλοφορικὴν ~E, B, n), and
1005 A (συνεπιταχύνων : ἐπιταχύνων -E, B, Escor.).

4 1007 F (σελήνην : τὴν σελήνην -E, B) and 1009 a (μεσό-
τητας: ὡς μεσότητας -

¢ Cf. Valgiglio, De Fato, p. xr and his references to Treu
and Larsen, p. xxxIx, ἢ. 36.

4 999 ἢ (πότερον -E, B, J, g;3 πότερα -X, ες n), 1001 5
(τῇ ὕλῃ -E, B, J, g, ε, ns τῆ ἕλη -X), 1001 ς (γένους -E},
ἈΠΕ, Ts See θα J, g, B).

12

PLATONIC QUESTIONS

E with B in agreement has a reading different from
that of X and J¢; and in still another E, agreeing
with X and J, was changed by E? to disagree with
both.? The first part of the work, then, must have
been copied by E from a ms. the text of which was
much nearer to that of X than to that of J.

In the first part of the work (999 c—1002 pb) B
disagrees with E and all other mss. seven times,° in
agreement with J disagrees with E and all others
once, and in agreement with E? disagrees with ΕΝ
thrice. In the second part of the work B agrees
once with E? and all other mss. against Εἰ in the order
of words (1003 a-s), disagrees with E eight times,’
and once, though agreeing with E, has a “ correction ”

4 1000 F (ἢ : καὶ -Εἰ, B; omitted by X, J, g,«,n.). The
other seven cases are 999 F, 1000 8, 1001 pb (b2s), 1002 a,
1002 5, 1002 pb.

b i A (ἐμφαινομένων -B, E*; ἐκφαινομένων -X, J, g, E},
ες Nj).

¢ Twice in the order of words (999 E-F and 1001 8), thrice
by wrongly omitting a word (1001 Β [ἔοικεν], 1002 a [ἐν after
ὥσπερ]. and 1002 8 [τῆς after ἔκ te), and twice in the form
of a word (1000 a [διανομὴ : νομὴ -Β] and 1000 pb [νοητὸν :
νοητὴν -B}).

4 1002 B (μικρότητα : μακρότητα -J, B).

4 1001 c (γένους -E, X, ε, ἢ ; γένος -B, E*, J, g), 1002 a
(ἐκ δὲ : δὲ with three dots superscript -E ; δὲ omitted by B),
and 1002 a (ἐμφαινομένων -B, ΕΞ; ἐκφαινομένων -E! and
all other mss.).

f 1004 B (καμπυλωτέρας : καμπυλοτέρας -B, €), 1007 κε (dp-
μονίᾳ : ἁρμονίαν -B), 1007 F (τὸν ἐν μὲν τοῖς : τὸν μὲν τοῖς - Ὁ :
τὸν μὲν ev τοῖς -J, g), 1008 c (ὀρέξει : ἕξει -Β), 1008 c (τῷ
λογισμῷ καὶ σύμμαχον : καὶ σύμμαχον τῷ λογισμῷ -Β ; καὶ
λογισμῷ σύμμαχον “n), 1008 D (ὑπάτη : ὑπάτην -B), 1008 F (ὁτὲ
μέν τε μετὰ: ὁτὲ μὲν μετὰ -B; ὁτὲ... vac. 5... μετὰ -J ;
ὁτὲ μετὰ -5), 1009 B (λόγου 7A μηθὲν dua...vac. 13...
καὶ -Ε ; λόγου... vac. 34... -B).

op
13

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

that points to a variant resembling the readings
of J and σα This last and the lacuna in 1009 B are
the strongest indications that the second part of the
work in B was copied neither from E nor from the
source of E for this part; and, although no single
passage decisively proves that B did not copy the
whole work from E after E had been corrected,?® it
is at least equally possible that B copied it from the
MS. whence E had taken the first part of it.

Of the extant Mss. containing the whole work the
oldest is J (13th century),° for the part of X that
contains it was written in the 14th century. It has
been asserted that J is nearer than X to the Planu-
dean text,? but the very opposite is true. In that
part of the work which is preserved in a and A
(1002 p ff.) J and X agree against a A FE seven times
and three more against α ὁ; but, where J and X
disagree, while J agrees with a A FE against X
twenty times, with a! A! E against X α A? once,
and with a! against X a? A E oncef X agrees with
a A E against J 167 times and with a against J four

op

* 1003 B (διάφωνον -B; διαφέρειν -J 3; διαφέρον -Β : διάφω-
νον - Εἰ and all other mss.).

» Yor the controversy concerning the relation of B to E
see Plutarch, Moralia (L.C.L.), xii (1957), pp. 26-27 and 31-
32 (with B. Einarson, Class. PAil., liii [1958], p. 265, n. 3),
ix (1961), p. 305, and xi (1965), p. 6; Pohlenz-Westman,
Moralia vi/2 (1959), pp. 228-229.

¢ J4=the corrections made by Demetrius Ducas in pre-
paring J as “copy for the printer of the Aldine edition ”’
(ef. Treu, Ueberlieferung iii, pp. 22-26).

¢ Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, p. x1.

¢ In all eases I disregard differences of accent and breath-
ing alone.

7 Of these 22 cases two are omissions of words in X and
two are omissions of words in J.

14

PLATONIC QUESTIONS

times more. Since not only X but all other ss.
preserve words that J omits, J cannot be the source
of any other ms. for this work, not even of g.

The agreement of g with J is striking even in the
omission of words that are present in all other mss.?
and in the preservation of words that are missing
from X°; but g agrees with X and others against
J at least 38 times, in two cases preserving words
that are omitted by J alone.¢ The close agreement
of g with J suggests, therefore, that both were copied
from the same ms. and that this ms. itself exhibited
most of the errors and omissions common to J and
g. It may have been a copy or a twin of the arche-
type of X and may have contained some of the
variants that X appears to have preserved from that

2 Of these differences between X and J 35 are omissions
of a word or words in J and three are omissions of a word or
words in X. If these omissions were the fault of the scribes
of J and X themselves, their originals may have shown less
of a difference in relation to a A E, as is indicated by 1006 c,
where X agrees with a A E in preserving sixteen words
omitted by J and yet in these sixteen words differs from α A
E three times.

’ J and g agree against all other mss. more than 150
times, in 45 of which they omit words that all others have,
e.g. 1000 Ε (καὶ δεόμενον and καὶ βεβαιοῦντος), 1003 B (τῶν
δὲ κυκλικῶν ... τὰς τῶν εὐθυγράμμων), and 1006 ς (ἐλλομένην

. ἀνειλουμένην).

ὁ. 1008 B (ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς) and 1011 A (λυγῶν πρὸς τὴν τῶν
προβάτων -omitted by X. F, B, and ε as well as by a, A, y).

4 There are also about 25 unique readings in g, some ten
of which are omissions of a single word, probably the fault
of the scribe of g himself.

¢ 1000 ς (οὐ προσδέξεται. . . τὸ πλῆθος) and 1004 ν»
(πλειόνων). ‘The statement in Hubert-Drexler, Jforalia vi/1,
p. x1u, line 1 concerning voovpev(ov), “ exhib. g,” is er-
roneous.

15

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

archetype, e.g. 1005 F (kevoupevas -X1; κινουμένας -J ;

TE
κενουμένας -g and all other mss.), 1006 B (yap -X!;
τερον
τε -J, g3 γὰρ -all other ss.), 1008 E (ἀνωτάτω -X! ;
ἀνώτερον -J, £5 ἀνωτάτω -all other mss.).

Both ε and the part of n written by the first
hand @ agree with X in preserving the many words
omitted by J and g and almost never agree with J
or g or J g alone against X,° and in the part of the
work that is missing from the mutilated mss. (2.e.
before τοῦ νοητοῦ in 1002 p) they agree in several
significant readings with X, J, and g against EK and
B.c Thereafter, although they occasionally agree
with a, A, E, and B against X, J, and g,? they pre-
serve with X words that are missing from these
Mss.* and never agree with Bonon., Voss., or Escor.
against all others ; but both of them also preserve
words omitted by X,f and each of the two has words

¢ That is from the beginning of the work through ἀλλὰ
ἕτερον at the end of 1008 a=folios 1'-6% (see p. 6, n. b
supra).

» The exceptions are 1001 (μαθηματικόν : μαθητικόν -J, e),
1001 pv (δὲ τοῖς : δὲ τῆς -J, g, n), 1005 D (τις -omitted by
J, g, €), 1005 F (ὑπείκοντος : ὑπήκοντος -J, €, n), and
1006 B (τὸν : τὸ -J, g, ε).

¢ 1000 B (φιλοσοφίᾳ -X, J, g, εν 1; σοφίᾳ -E, B), 1000 F
(7 τῇ : καὶ τῇ -Li, Β: 3 TH -X, Ὁ, 8. ες Π), 1001 » rs τμήματα
... ἔτεμε -K, Bs ἄνισα τὰ τμήματα. .. ἔτεμνε -X, J, g, en),
1002 B (Gdn: θεοῖς -X, J, 2, €, ἢ : νοητοῖς -E, B).

4 1006 vb (λαμβάνοντας : λαμβάνοντα ε, ἢ. a, A, EF, B),
1007 pb (ἐστι -omitted by ε, n, a, A, nee 16 EK, B), 1007 πὶ (οὐ
φαύλων : οὐδὲ φαύλων -e, Nn, a, A, β'. γ, Εὶ 2);

ε 1005 c-D (σωμάτων εἰλυσπᾶν οὕτως ὑπὸ τοῦ OAC ὁ -Ν,
én; owudrwy...vac....6-a, A, K, B; σωμάτων, o -J,

8. γ).
f 1003 B (ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς), 1007 F (καὶ -omitted by X alone).
16

PLATONIC QUESTIONS

that the other omits.¢ Neither ε nor this part of n,
then, could have been derived from any of the extant
mss.; and both are probably independent copies of
the archetype of X.

This i is not the case, however, with folios 7:-θν of n
(of yap ὡς κυρίαν [1008 a sub finem] to the end of the
work). The text of these folios, written in a hand
different from that of folios 17-6’, while agreeing
with e and X in preserving words omitted by J and
g, by E and B, and by a, A, and y,? also preserves
words omitted by e and X ¢; and in all these passages
n is in agreement with one or more of the group con-
sisting of Bonon., Voss., and Escor., as it also is in
23 of the 24 cases in which—besides five readings
unique to it—it disagrees with ε. In eleven of these
23 cases, moreover, n is in agreement only with one
or more of this group (81 or f? included in some
cases). It was certainly from a ms. related to this
group, therefore, and possibly from the archetype
of Bonon. that this last part of the work in n was
taken.

* e.g. 1001 a sub finem (τοῦ τεκνώσαντος -omitted by n
alone), 1005 a (ἅμα -omitted by n alone), 1005 B (τὸ δ᾽ η-
λεκτρον ... συνεφέλκεται τὸν σίδηρον -omitted by ε alone),
1007 Ε (καὶ πρώτῳ -omitted by ε alone).

> 1009 B (λόγου psa: μηθὲν ἅμα καὶ -e, n, Χ, β, Bonon. “
Voss.; λόγου ...vac....Kxai-a, A, y, B), 1010 a (καθ᾽ αὑτὸ
aye by E , B), 1010 ὁ earaaran » + « μέρος εἶναι -omitted

ΟΥ͂ aes A: γι K, B, 81), 1011 B (νὴ Δία -omitted by J, g,
Ay the Ys τὸ, Dy

5 1010 bv (ἐκπώμασι μὴ -n, Bonon., Voss., Escor., f?;
μὴ omitted by all other mss.), 1011 a (Ὀδυσσέα λυγῶντα πρὸς
τὴν τῶν προβάτων. .. vac. ...ov-n, Voss.; Ὀδυσσέα ...
vac....ov-X, a, A, y, ἔν B, e).

17

(999 C) ΠΛΑΤΩΝΙΚΑ ZHTHMATA?

ZHTHMA A’

1. Tt δήποτε τὸν Σωκράτην ὁ θεὸς μαιοῦσθαιἶ
μὲν ἐκέλευσεν ἑτέρους, αὐτὸν δὲ γεννᾶν ἀπεκώ-
λυσεν, ὡς ἐν Θεαιτήτῳ λέγεται; Οὐ γὰρ ᾿εἰρω-
νευόμενός γε" καὶ παίζων TPOGEXPHGAT. av τῷ
D τοῦ᾽ θεοῦ ὀνόματι. καὶ ἄλλως ἐν τῷ Θεαιτήτῳ
πολλὰ μεγάλαυχα καὶ σοβαρὰ Σωκράτει περι-
τέθεικεν, ὧν καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστί: “ πολλοὶ γὰρ δή,"
ὦ θαυμάσιε, πρός με οὕτω" διετέθησαν, ὥστ᾽
ἀτεχνῶς δάκνειν' ἐπειδάν τινα λῆρον αὐτῶν ἀφ-
αἱιρῶμαι: καὶ οὐκ οἴονταί με εὐνοίᾳ τοῦτο ποιεῖν,
πόρρω ὄντες τοῦ εἰδέναι ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς δύσνους
ἀνθρώποις οὐδ᾽ ἐγὼ δυσνοίᾳ τοιοῦτον οὐδὲν δρῶ,
ἀλλά μοι ψεῦδός τε συγχωρῆσαι καὶ ἀληθὲς ἀ-
᾿φανίσαι οὐδαμῶς θέμις."
Πότερον οὖν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ὡς κριτικω- β

1X, J, g, E, Β, ε, ἢ ; πλατωνικὰ ζητήματα ὧν οὐχ εὑρέθη
ἡ ἀρχή -α, A, β, Bonon. C 3635, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5 (all
beginning with τοῦ νοητοῦ μόνον [1002 5} and γ (beginning
with τί δήποτε τὴν ψυχὴν [1002 Ε]).

5 μαιεύεσθαι -Plato (Theaetetus 150 c 7). 3 γὲ -J, g.

4 τῷ -omitted by J and added superscript by J*; τοῦ

“omitted by X, g, E, B, e, n.
ἤδη ~Nogarola from Theaetetus 151 ὁ 5.

5 πρός με οὕτω -Ν, Εἰ, B, ε. n, Plato; οὕτω πρός με -J, δ΄.

7 «ἕτοιμοι εἶναι» -added by Stephanus from Theaetelus
151 c 7.

18

PLATONIC QUESTIONS

QUESTION I

1. WuyveEveR did god, as is stated in the Theaetetus,¢
bid Socrates act as midwife to others but prevent
him from himself begetting ? Certainly he would
not have used the name of god in irony or jest ὃ ;
and besides in the Theaetetus Socrates has been
made to say many arrogant and haughty things,
among them this °: “ For a great many men, my
excellent friend, have got into such a state of mind
towards me as practically to bite when I remove
some silliness of theirs; and they do not believe
that I am doing this out of benevolence, for they
are a long way from knowing that no god is male-
volent towards men and that neither do I do any
such deed out of malevolence but that it is quite
illicit for me to admit falsehood and suppress truth.”’

Is it then his own nature, as being more dis-

α Plato, Theaetetus 150 c 7-8. }

’ Cf. Plato, Symposium 216 Ἑ 4-5 (εἰρωνευόμενος δὲ καὶ
παίζων πάντα τὸν βίον πρὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους διατελεῖ). The ten-
dency to dismiss as “‘irony”’ statements of Socrates that
connected with god his behaviour in carrying on his elen-
chus is mentioned not only in Anon. in Platonis Theae-
tetum (Pap. Berl. 9782), col. 58, 39-49 (p. 39 [Diels-Schubart])
but also in the Platonic Apology 37 © 5—38 a 1.

© Theaetetus 151 c ὅ- 3.

8. πότερα -Χ, e, N.

19

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

? Ni , > θ ‘ A θ
(999) τέραν 7° γονιμωτέραν οὖσαν θεὸν προσεῖπε, καθ-
ἅπερ Μένανδρος “6 νοῦς γὰρ ἡμῶν ὁ Geos”
1 ¢ , 1“ 3 , ὁ , ” ‘
καὶ ᾿ Πράκλειτος “᾿ ἦθος ἀνθρώπου" δαίμων ᾿"" ἢ
E θεῖόν τι καὶ δαιμόνιον ὡς ἀληθῶς αἴτιον ὑφηγή-
σατο Σωκράτει τοῦτο τῆς φιλοσοφίας τὸ γένος,
@ N ” > , > \ , \ / 3
ᾧ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐξετάζων ἀεὶ τύφου Kat πλάνου
καὶ ἀλαζονείας καὶ τοῦ βαρεῖς εἶναι πρῶτον μὲν
αὑτοῖς εἶτα καὶ τοῖς συνοῦσιν ἀπήλλαττε; καὶ
γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐκ τύχης τότε φορὰν συνέβη γενέσθαι"

A > ~ ς / \ f ε ,
σοφιστῶν ev τῇ “Ἑλλάδι: καὶ τούτοις ot νέοι
πολὺ τελοῦντες" ἀργύριον οἰήματος ἐπληροῦντο καὶ
δοξοσοφίας, καὶ λόγων ἐζήλουν" σχολὴν καὶ διατρι-

1 ἢ -Turnebus, Nogarola : καὶ -all mss.

2 ἀνθρώπῳ -Bernardakis (cf. Stobaeus, Anth. iv, 40, 28 -Ξ
v, Ὁ. 925, 12 [Hense]); but cf. ἀνθρώπων in Alexander, De
Fato, p. 170, 18-19 and De An. Inbri Mantissa, p. 185, 23
(Bruns).

3 πλάνης -J, ἘΠ

* γενέσθαι συνέβη -J, g.

δ πολυτελοῦντες -X}, J}, ε.

8. ἐζήλουν -X, EF, e, n, Βόοττ, (ἐζήτουν -B! with A superscript
over τὴ ; ζήλου -J, g.

“ Being predominantly, therefore, cognition (cf. τῷ κριτικῷ
in De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1024 B infra), the part or faculty
which exists without difference in the soul of gods also (cf.
Albinus, Epitome xxv, 7 [Louis] =p. 178, 32-33 [Hermann]).
For τὸ γόνιμον as part of the irrational soul ¢f. Philo Jud.,
De Agricultura 30-31 (ii, p. 101, 5-7 [Wendland}) and Quis
Rerum Div. Heres 232 (iii, p. 52, 13-15 [Wendland)]) ;
Plutarch probably identified it with that fifth part which he
calls now θρεπτικόν and again φυτικόν (De EH 390 τ and
De Defectu Orac. 429 ©; cf. Aristotle, De Anima 415 a
23-26 and Eth. Nic. 1102 a 32~b 2).

” Cf. ὅτι εἰκάζει ἑαυτὸν θεῷ (Anon. in Platonis Theaete-
tum [Pap. Berl. 9782], col. 58, 42-43) and τῷ θεῷ συνέταξεν
éavtov (Olympiodorus, ln Platonis Alcibiadem Priorem,
p. 53, 14-15 and pp. 173, 21-174, 9 [Creuzer]).

20

PLATONIC QUESTIONS I, 999

cerning than fertile,* that he called god,? as Men-
ander said “for our intelligence is god’’* and
Heraclitus ‘‘ the character of a man is his guardian
spirit’’?; or did some truly divine and spiritual
cause ὁ guide Socrates to this kind of philosophy
with which by continually subjecting others to ex-
amination he made them free of humbug and error
and pretentiousness and of being burdensome first
to themselves and then to their companions also ἢ f
For at that time as if by chance there happened also
to have sprung up in Greece a crop of sophists ; and
the young men, paying these persons a large amount
of money, were getting themselves filled full of self-
conceit and sham-wisdom and were zealous for dis-

¢ Menander, frag. 749 (Koerte-Thierfelder) =frag. 762
(Kock) ; of. frag. 64 (Koerte-Thierfelder) =frag. 70 (Kock).

4 Heraclitus, frag. B 119 (D.-K. and Walzer) =frag. 121
(Bywater). For the implied polemic against the conven-
tional notion of the δαίμων as the “ destiny ᾿᾿ assigned to a
man cf. G. Misch, 4 History of Autobiography in Antiquity
(London, 1950), pp. 94-95 ; and see Plato, Republic 617 £ 1
and 620 p 8, where the soul of each selects its own δαίμων,
and Apuleius, De Deo Socratis xv, 150(‘‘... animus humanus
etiam nunc in corpore situs daemon nuncupatur . . . daemon
bonus id est animus virtute perfectus est ’?) = Xenocrates, frag,
81 (Heinze).

e This is surely a reference to the “divine sign,” τὸ
δαιμόνιον (cf. 1000 Ὁ infra), which in Plato’s Apology 31 c 8—
Ὁ 1 Socrates calls θεῖόν τι καὶ δαιμόνιον (cf. Proclus, In
Platonis Alcibiadem Priorem, p. 79, 1-14 [Creuzer] =p. 35
{ Westerink]) and the nature of which is discussed by Plu-
tarch in De Genio Socratis 580 c—582 c and 588 c—589 F.
ὑφηγήσατο could not properly be used of the sign which
according to Plato ἀεὶ ἀποτρέπει . . . προτρέπει δὲ οὔποτε
(Apology 31 Ὁ 3-4, cf. Phaedrus 242 c 1), but Plutarch seems
to have neglected this limitation (cf. De Genio Socratis 581 B:
δαιμόνιον εἶναι τὸ κωλῦον ἢ κελεῦον ἔλεγε).

7 Cf. Plato, Theaetetus 210 c 2-4 and Sophist 230 5 4-Ὁ 8.
21

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(999) ) Bas ἀπράκτους ἐν ἔρισι καὶ φιλοτιμίαις καλὸν δὲ
καὶ χρήσιμον οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν. τὸν οὖν ἐλεγκτικὸν
λόγον ὥσπερ καθαρτικὸν ἔ ἔχων φάρμακον ὁ Σω-

F κράτης ἀξιόπιστος ἢ ἦν ἑτέρους ἐλέγχων τῷ μηδὲν
ἀποφαίνεσθαι, καὶ μᾶλλον ἥπτετο δοκῶν ζητεῖν
κοινῇ τὴν ἀλήθειαν οὐκ αὐτὸς ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ; βοηθεῖν.

1000 2. "Ἔπειτα τοῦ κρίνειν ὄντος ὠφελίμου, τὸ γεν-
vay" ἐμπόδιόν ἐστι. τυφλοῦται γὰρ τὸ φιλοῦν
περὶ τὸ φιλούμενον" φιλεῖται δὲ τῶν ἰδίων οὐδὲν
οὕτως ὡς δόξα καὶ λόγος ὑπὸ τοῦ τεκόντος. ἡ
γὰρ λεγομένη τέκνων δικαιοτάτη διανομὴ" πρὸς

ὄγους ἐστὶν ἀδικωτάτη" δεῖ γὰρ ἐκεῖ μὲν λα-
βεῖν᾽ τὸ ἴδιον ἐνταῦθα δέ, κἂν ἀλλότριον ἢ, τὸ
’ e € ~ ΜΝ U ,
βέλτιστον. ὅθεν ὁ γεννῶν ἴδια γίγνεται φαυλό-
τερος ἑτέρων κριτής. καὶ καθάπερ ᾿Ηλείους τῶν
~ 6 yu f “A 4 ~ 3 /
σοφῶν" tis ἔφη βελτίους av εἶναι τῶν ᾿Ολυμπίων
3 ’ > A t 3 ’ = 3 ;
ἀγωνοθέτας, εἰ μηδὲ εἷς ᾿Ηλείων ἦν ἀγωνιστής,
οὕτως ὁ μέλλων ἐν λόγοις ὀρθῶς ἐπιστατήσειν
1 φάρμακον € ἔχων -Β. 3 δόξης -X, J} (ὃ -ἢ over erasure),
εἼ ἐνναῖον -J, g. νομὴ -Β.

& X, E, B e,N; ἐκεῖ λαβεῖν μὲν -J, g.
6 σοφιστῶν -J, g.

* See 1000 c-p infra (οὐ yap σώματος ἡ Σωκράτους i ἰατρεία
ψυχῆς δ᾽ ἦν... καθαρμός). The source is Plato’s Sophist 280 c
3-r 3 and 231 s 3-8. Cf. Philo of Larissa in Stobaeus, Eel.
ii, 7, 2 (p. 40, 11-20 [Wachsmuth]); Albinus, Prologue vi
(p. 150, 15-35 [Hermann]) ; Cebetis Tabula xix; ; Philo
Jud., De Decalogo 10-13 (iv, pp. 270, 23-271, 13 {Cohn}).

> Theactetus 150 c 5-6; ; ef. Anon. in Platonis Theaetetum
(Pap. Berl. 9782), col. 54, 17-26.

¢ Cf. Plutarch, Quomodo Adulator ab Amico Internoscatur
72a and Adv. Colotem 1117 Ὁ (cf. Pohlenz-Westman, Moralia
vi/2, p. 237, note to p. 194, 26-28); Plato, Charmides 165 B
5-8 and Gorgias 506 a 3-5 and Cratylus 384 c 1-3.

@ So given as from Plato in Quomodo Adulator ab Amico

22

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1, 999-1000

cussion of arguments and for disputations futile in
wranglings and ambitious rivalries but not for any-
thing fair and serviceable at all. So Socrates with
his refutatory discourse like a purgative medicine 2
by maintaining nothing ὃ claimed the credence of
others when he refuted them, and he got the greater
hold on them because he seemed to be seeking the
truth along with them, not himself to be defending
an opinion of his own.°¢

2. In the second place, while the exercise of judg-
ment is beneficial, begetting is an obstacle to it, for
what loves is blinded about the thing it loves ὁ and
nothing of one’s own is so beloved as is an opinion
or an argument by its parent. For the distribution
of offspring that is proverbially most just ὁ is most
unjust when applied to arguments, for in the former
case one must take what is one’s own but in the
latter what is best even if it be another's.‘ For this
reason the man who begets his own becomes a poorer
judge of others; and just as one of the sages said
that Eleans would be better directors of the Olympic
games if not a single Elean were entered in the con-
test, so one who is going to be an upright moderator

Internoscatur 48 E-F and in De Capienda ex Inimicis Utili-

tate 90 a and 92 E; Plato in Laws 731 £ has τυφλοῦται yap
περὶ τὸ φιλούμενον ὁ φιλῶν.

¢ I have not found the proverb or saying cited elsewhere.

7 Cf. Plato, Philebus 29 a (.. . δεῖν τἀλλότρια . . . λέγειν

. ) and Phaedo 85 c 8-9 (.. pew γοῦν βέλτιστον ray ἀνθρω-
πίνων λόγων λαβόντα .. .).

σ Cf. Herodotus, ii, 160 and Diodorus Siculus, i, 95, 2.
The impartiality with which the Eleans administered the
games was, nevertheless, held to be exemplary (cf. Plutarch,
TIycurgus xx, 6 [52 c-p]= Reg. et Imp. Apophthegmata 190
c-p and 215 £-r; Dio Chrysostom, Oratio xiv =xxxi [von
Arnim], 111; Athenaeus, viii, 350 b-c).

3

(1000)

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

καὶ βραβεύσειν' od δίκαιός ἐστιν αὐτὸς φιλοστε-
φανεῖν οὐδ᾽ ἀνταγωνίζεσθαι τοῖς κρινομένοις. καὶ
ap οἱ τῶν Ἑλλήνων στρατηγοὶ τὴν περὶ τῶν
ἀριστείων ψῆφον φέροντες αὑτοὺς ἀρίστους ἔκρι-
ναν ἅπαντες"" καὶ τῶν φι οσόφων οὐδεὶς ἔστιν,
ὃς οὐ τοῦτο πέπονθε δίχα τῶν ὥσπερ Σωκράτης
ὁμολογούντων. μηδὲν ἴδιον λέγειν" οὗτοι δὲ καθα-
ροὺς μόνοι καὶ ἀδεκάστους τῆς ἀληθείας παρέχου-
σιν ἑαυτοὺς δικαστάς. ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν
ἀήρ, ἂν μὴ σταθερὸς 7 μηδὲ φωνῆς ἰδίας ἔρημος ἀλλ᾽
ἤχου καὶ ῥοίζου μεστός, οὐκ ἀκριβῶς ἀντιλαμβάνε-
ται τῶν φθεγγομένων, οὕτω TO τοὺς λόγους ἐν φι-
Aocodia* κρῖνον, ἂν ἔνδοθεν ἀντιπαταγῇ {τιν καὶ
ἀντηχῇ., δυσξύνετον ἔσται τῶν λεγομένων ἔξωθεν.
ἡ γὰρ οἰκεία δόξα καὶ σύνοικος οὐ προσδέξεται τὸ
διαφωνοῦν πρὸς αὑτήν, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ τῶν αἱρέσεων
τὸ πλῆθος, ὧν, ἂν ἄριστα πράττῃ φιλοσοφία,
μίαν ἔχει κατορθοῦσαν οἰομένας δὲ τὰς ἄλλας
ἁπάσας καὶ μαχομένας" πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν.

8. "Ext τοίνυν, εἰ μὲν οὐδέν ἐστι καταληπτὸν
ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ γνωστόν, εἰκότως ὁ θεὸς ἀπεκώ-
καὶ βραβεύσειν -omitted by J, g.
ἅπαντας τυ.
τὸ -omitted by g.
σοφίᾳ -Ἐὶ, B.
ἀντιπαγῆ -8.

Hubert; ἔνδοθέν «τῷ ἀντιπαταγῇ -Wyttenbach.
οὐ προσδέξεται. .«. τὸ πλῆθος -omitted by J.
φιλοσοφία, μίαν ἔχει -X, Ἐς, B; φιλοσοφίαν ἔχειν -J, δ:

οσοφία μίαν ἔχειν -¢, ἢ.
καὶ μαχομένας -omitted by J, g.

O23 ὦ σι m@ (9 8 μα

Ξ,

φι

4 Cf. De Herodoti Malignitate 871 ν-Ὲ and Themistocles
xvii, 2; Herodotus, viii, 123.
ὃ Cf. Theophrastus, De Sensibus 19 (Dox. Graeci, pp. 504,

24

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1, 1000

and umpire in arguments is bound not to crave the
palm himself or to vie with the contenders. For
even the generals of the Greeks when casting their
ballot for the award of excellence all gave judgment
for themselves as best 2; and of philosophers there
is none to whom this has not happened apart from
those who like Socrates admit that they say nothing
original, and these alone show themselves to be
sound and incorruptible judges of the truth. For as
the air in the ears does not accurately perceive utter-
ances if it be not still and free from sound of its own
but full of ringing and buzzing,® so what judges argu-
ments in philosophy will have poor understanding of
statements coming from without if they are muffled
by the clatter and noise {οἵ something) from within.¢
For personal opinion to which one is wedded will not
accept what disagrees with her, as the multitude of
systems testifies, of which philosophy, if she is faring
her best, involves a single one being right and all
the others guessing and being in conflict with the
truth.

3. Furthermore, if nothing is apprehensible and
knowable to man,? it was reasonable for god to have

29-505, 2) and 41 (Dow. Graeci, p. 511, 6-8) =Diogenes of
Apollonia, frag. A 19 (ii, p. 55, 26-28 [D.-K.]).

¢ Cf. the explanation of Socrates’ sensitivity to the
‘* spiritual voice’ given in De Genio Socratis 588 p-r and
589 c-p.

¢ The position of Arcesilaus (for whom see note a on De
Stoic. Repug. 1036 a infra), ascribed by him to Socrates also
(cf. Adv. Colotem 1121 r—1122 a; Cicero, Acad. Post. i,
44-45 and De Oratore iii, 67; Lactantius, Div. Inst. iii, 6,
7=p. 188, 11-14 [Brandt]; A. Goedeckemeyer, Die Ge-
schichte des griechischen Skeptizismus [Leipzig, 1905], pp.
33-34).

25

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1000) λυσεν αὐτὸν ὑπηνέμια καὶ ψευδῆ καὶ ἀβέβαια
γεννᾶν ἐλέγχειν" δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους ἠνάγκαζε τοιαῦτα
δοξάζοντας. οὐ γὰρ μικρὸν ἦν ὄφελος ἀλλὰ μέ-
γιστον ὁ τοῦ μεγίστου τῶν κακῶν, ἀπάτης καὶ
κενοφροσύνης, ἀπαλλάττων λόγος

οὐδ᾽" βακληριήθοια τοῦτό γ᾽ ἔδωκε θεός.

οὐ γὰρ σώματος ἡ Σωκράτους ἰατρεία ψυχῆς δ᾽
D ἦν ὑπούλου καὶ διεφθαρμένης καθαρμός. εἰ δ᾽
ἔστιν ἐπιστήμη τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἕν δὲ τὸ ἀληθές, οὐκ
ἔλαττον ἔχει τοῦ εὑρόντος ὁ μαθὼν παρὰ τοῦ
e / 4 4 “- ς εὖ 4
εὑρόντος" λαμβάνει δὲ μᾶλλον ὁ μὴ πεπεισμένος
” A v A / > € 7 σ
ἔχειν, καὶ λαμβάνει τὸ βέλτιστον ἐξ ἁπάντων, ὥσ-
περ ὁ μὴ τεκὼν παῖδα ποιεῖται" τὸν ἄριστον. β
4, Ὅρα δὲ μὴ τἄλλα μὲν οὐδεμιᾶς ἦν ἀξια
σπουδῆς ποιήματα καὶ μαθήματα καὶ λόγοι ῥητό-
ρων καὶ δόγματα σοφιστῶν, a Σωκράτην' γεννᾶν
τὸ δαιμόνιον ἀπεκώλυσεν᾽ ἣν δὲ μόνην ἡγεῖτο Σω-
κράτης σοφίαν, {τὴν " περὶ τὸ θεῖον καὶ νοητὸν"
1 λέγειν -J, 8.
εἰ δ᾽ ee (οὐ δ᾽ -Vat. gr. 915),
8 Wyttenbach ; παιδοποιεῖται -MSS.
δῦ, £3; Σωκ i7n -Χ, Εἰ, Β, e, ἢ.
5 «τὴν» -added by Wilamowitz.

6 νρητὴν -B.

«α Cf. Plato, Theaetetus 151 © 5-6 and 160 © 6—161 a 4.

ὃ Theognis, 432; cf. the use of the line (also with initial
οὐδ᾽) by Dio Chrysostom, Oratio i, 8 (von Arnim).

¢ Cf. Plato, Sophist 230 c—231 8B and note a on p. 22
supra; and with ψυχῆς ὑπούλου cf. Gorgias 480 B 1-2 and
524 £ 5—525 a 2.

4 Cf. Cicero, Acad. Prior. ii, 115 and 147 and De Oratore ii,
30 (‘cum plus uno verum esse non possit’’); Seneca,
Epistle cii, 13; Lucian, Hermotimus 14 (τὸ δέ ye ἀληθὲς...
ἕν ἦν avray.. ἐν ; and Aristotle, Anal. Prior. 47 a 8-9.

26

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1, 1000

prevented Socrates from begetting inane and false
and baseless notions and to compel him to refute
the others who were forming such opinions.* For
the discourse that liberates from the greatest of
evils, deception and vanity, was not a slight but a
very great help—

This gift god didn’t grant even Asclepius’ sons. ὃ

lor the treatment given by Socrates was not of the
body but was a purgation of the ulcerous and cor-
rupted soul.¢ If, however, there is knowledge of
what is true and what is true is single,¢ he who has
learned it from the discoverer does not possess it less
than he who discovered it ¢; but the one who ac-
quires it is rather he who is not sure that he possesses
it,f and he acquires what is best of all, just as he
who is not a parent himself adopts the child that is
best.

4. Consider too that, while the other things,
poetry and mathematics and rhetorical speeches
and sophistic doctrines, which the spiritual power 9
prevented Socrates from begetting, were worth no
serious concern, what Socrates held to be alone
wisdom, <that) which he called passion for the

¢ See, however, De Recta Ratione Audiendi 48 B-p and
Plutarch’s advice there ἀσκεῖν ἅμα τῇ μαθήσει τὴν εὕρεσιν.
The proverbial alternative ἢ εὑρεῖν ἢ παρ᾽ ἄλλου μαθεῖν (cf.
Plato, Laches 186 c and 186 π΄--Ι87 a; Phaedo 85 c 71-8
and 99 c 6-9; [Alcibiades i] 106 bp, 109 p-r, and 110 p;
[ Demodocus] 381 £ 6-8; Aristotle, Topics 178 Ὁ 34-35) was
itself converted into a proof that μάθησις is ἀνάμνησις (Maxi-
mus of Tyre, Philos. x, v h -vib=pp. 119, 8-120, 20 [Ho-
bein}).

f Contrast the situation of those who . . . πρὶν ἢ λαβεῖν
ἔχειν ὁμολογοῦντες οὐ λαμβάνουσιν (De Recta Ratione Audiendi
47 p). 9 See note 6 on p. 21 supra.

27

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

3 \ δι εὐ > ~ , ’ "
(1000) ἐρωτικὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ προσαγορευομένην, ταύτης οὐ
1) / 3) Be! θ 7 10 \ vd > 3. “5 /
γένεσις ἔστιν ἀνθρώποις οὐδὲ εὕρεσις ἀλλ᾽ ἀνάμνη-
\ QO 7 4 3 3...
σις. ὅθεν οὐδὲν ἐδίδασκε Σωκράτης, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνδιδοὺς
A 7 A 3
ἀρχὰς ἀποριῶν ὥσπερ ὠδίνων τοῖς νέοις ἐπήγειρε
καὶ ἀνεκίνει καὶ συνεξῆγε τὰς ἐμφύτους νοήσεις"
καὶ τοῦτο μαιωτικὴν τέχνην ὠνόμαζεν, οὐκ ἐν-
τιθεῖσαν ἔξωθεν, ὥσπερ ἕτεροι προσεποιοῦντο, νοῦν
τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχοντας οἰκεῖον ἐν
ἑαυτοῖς ἀτελῆ δὲ καὶ συγκεχυμένον καὶ δεόμενον'
τοῦ τρέφοντος καὶ βεβαιοῦντος" ἐπιδεικνύουσαν.

ZHTHMA Β΄

1. Τί δήποτε τὸν ἀνωτάτω θεὸν πατέρα τῶν"
πάντων καὶ ποιητὴν προσεῖπε," πότερον ὅτι" τῶν
μὲν θεῶν τῶν γεννητῶν" καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πα-

1 καὶ δεόμενον -omitted by J, g.

2 καὶ βεβαιοῦντος -omitted by J, g.
8 τῶν -omitted by J, g.
* προσεῖπεν -J, g.

5 πότερον ὅτι -omitted by J, g.

wen £3 γενητῶν a EB. 6, Bs
¢ Cf. Plato, Symposiwm 204 8B 2-5 and 210 r—212 a;
Republic 490 a 8-8 7 and 501 ἢ 1-2 with 409 a (... ἣν
μόνην δεῖ... σοφίαν καλεῖσθαι) and Theaetetus 176 c 85-Ὁ 1.

’ Cf. Plutarch, De Defectu Orac. 422 B-c and the theses
ascribed to him in Olympiodorus, Jn Platonis Phaedonem,
pp. 155, 24-157, 12 and 212, 1-26 (Norvin). For parallels
with this and the remainder of this section in Cicero, Albinus,
Maximus of Tyre, and the anonymous commentator on
Plato’s Theaetetus cf. O. Luschnat, Theologia Viatorum, viii
(1961/62), pp. 167-171; and for the Platonic doctrine of
reminiscence cf. Meno 85 p—86 B, Phaedo 72 ε---ἴθ πὶ and
91", and Phaedrus 249 5 5—c 4.

¢ Cf. Theaetetus 151 a 5-8 1 and 157 c 9—n 2. The ἔμφυτοι
νοήσεις here are not “inbred” as are the Stoic ἔμφυτοι
προλήψεις (see note 6 on De Stoic. Repug. 1041 Ἑ infra),

28

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1-11, 1000

divine and intelligible,* is for human beings a matter
not of generation or of discovery but of reminiscence.?
For this reason Socrates was not engaged in teaching
anything, but by exciting perplexities as if inducing
the inception of labour-pains in young men he would
arouse and quicken and help to deliver their innate
conceptions ©; and his name for this was obstetric
skill,¢ since it does not, as other men pretended to
do, implant in those who come upon it intelligence
from without but shows that they have it native
within themselves but undeveloped and confused and
in need of nurture and stabilization.

QUESTION II

1. WuyeEver did he call the supreme god father and
maker of all things ἢ ὁ Was it because he is of gods,
the gods that are engendered,f and of men father, as

despite the Stoic terminology : cf. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. i, 57 :
“,..insitas ... notiones quas ἐννοίας vocant...”’; Anon. in
Platonis Theaetetum (Pap. Berl. 9782), col. 47, 42-45: . ..
ἀναπτύσσων αὐτῶν tas φυσικὰς ἐννοίας . . . 3; and especially
re” Epitome iv, 6 (Louis) =P. 155, 17-29 (Hermann) :
νόησις . . διττὴ. ΐ ἡ μὲν πρὸ τοῦ ἐν σώματι γενέσθαι τὴν ψυ-
χὴν. . γενομένης δ᾽ pret ἐν σώματι ἡ τότε λεγομένη νόησις νῦν
ἐλέχθη φυσικὴ ἔννοια. ..
¢ Cf. Theaetetus 161 π 4-6, 184 a 8- 2, 210 B 8-9; Olym-

piodorus, Jn Platonis Phaedonem, p. 159, 1-3 (N orvin) = Plu-
tarch, AZoralia vii, p. 33, 7-10 (Bernardakis).

eA paraphrase of Timaeus 28 c 3-4 (τὸν μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν
καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντός), the interpretation of which is
discussed at length by Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum i, pp.
299, 13-319, 21 [Diehl], especially pp. 299, 21-300, 28; pp.
303, 24-304, 22; and pp. 311, 25-312, 9) and which is para-
phrased somewhat differently by Plutarch in Quaest. Conviv.
718 a (. τὸς α καὶ ποιητὴν τοῦ τε κόσμου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
hl hdl Cf. also Timaeus 37 c7 and 41 a 5-7.

oy. fia a Ὁ 4 (θεῶν ὁρατῶν καὶ γεννητῶν).

29

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1000) τήρ ἐστιν, ws’ Ὅμηρος ἐπονομάζει, ποιητὴς δὲ
Ε τῶν ἀλόγων καὶ ἀψύχων; οὐδὲ yap" xopiov® φη-

1001

at Χρύσιππος πατέρα καλεῖσθαι τὸν παρασχόντα
τὸ σπέρμα, καίπερ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος γεγονότος.
7 τῇ μεταφορᾷ “χρώμενος, ὥσπερ εἴωθε, τὸν
αἴτιον πατέρα τοῦ κόσμου κέκληκεν; ὡς τῶν
ἐρωτικῶν λόγων πατέρα Φαῖδρον ἐν Συμποσίῳ
προσεῖπεν, εἰσηγητὴν αὐτῶν" γενόμενον ἐν δὲ
τῷ “ὁμωνύμῳ διαλόγῳ καλλίπαιδα": πολλοὺς γὰρ
καὶ καλοὺς λόγους ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ γενέσθαι, τὴν
ἀρχὴν ἐκείνου παρασχόντος. 7° διαφέρει πατήρ

τε ποιητοῦ καὶ γεννήσεως γένεσις 3; ws γὰρ TO

γεγεννημένον και γέγονεν, * od μὴν ἀνάπαλιν, ov-

TWS ὁ γεννήσας καὶ πεποίηκεν" ' ἐμψύχου γὰρ γέ-
νεσις ἡ γέννησίς ἐστι. καὶ ποιητοῦ μέν, οἷος
οἰκοδόμος 7 ἢ ὑφάντης ἢ λύρας δημιουργὸς 7 ἢ ἀνδρι-
dvtos, ἀπήλλακται γενόμενον τὸ Epyov"*: ἡ δ᾽ ἀπὸ

Ξ δ -e3 ὡς -all other MSS.
AX, FE, B, ns ov yap -J, 23 οὐδὲ -e.

3 » Te xopeiov -X, FE, B; χωρίου -J, £3 χωρείου -e,
nN.

4 ἢ -Stephanus; καὶ -Εἰ (added superscript), B; omitted
by δ J > 2,6, Nn

5 αὐτὸν -J, g.

6 Wyttenbach ; καλλιπίδαν -X, J, σ᾽; καλλιππίδαν -E, B,
Ey τῇ

᾿ γὰρ καὶ -Χ, τ ΒΒ, ε. ἢ ; γὰρ ἦν καὶ -J, g.
7-3, 5: ΤῸΝ Dy Ὡς: tp

ϑ f, B, ἐπ: γένησις rd ἘΣ ε superscript over 7 -δ ἢ):
γέννησις -J, £3 ποίησις -Leonicus.

10 γέγονεν ~MSS. 5 πεποίηται -Donato Polo.

τ «οὐ μὴν ἀνάπαλιννρ -added by Meziriac; «οὐ μὴν ὁ
πεποιηκὼς γεγέννηκενΣ -added by Pohlenz after πεποίηκεν.

a γένεσις “MES. 3 ποίησις -TLeonicus.

183. ἀνδρίαν τε -J. 14 τὸ γενόμενον ἔργον -J, £.

en ee

@ Jliad i, 544 and often elsewhere.

30

PLATONIC QUESTIONS τι, 1000-1001

Homer names him,? but maker of irrational beings
and of inanimate things?’ For not even of the
placenta, says Chrysippus,° though it is a product of
the seed, is he who provided the seed called father.
Or is it by his customary use of metaphor that he
has called him who is responsible for the universe
its father ? Soin the Symposium ἃ he called Phaedrus
father of the amatory discourses because he was in-
stigator of them and in the dialogue that bears his
name ὁ called him blessed with fair children because
as a result of his initiative philosophy had been filled
with many fair discourses.’ Or is there a difference
between father and maker and between birth 9 and
coming to be? For as what has been born has ipso
facto come to be but not contrariwise so it is that he
who has begotten has ipso facto made, for birth is
the coming to be of an animate thing. Also in the
case of a maker, such as a builder is or a weaver or
one who produces a lyre or a statue, his work when
done is separated from him, whereas the principle

ὃ This interpretation is mentioned and rejected by Proclus,
In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 319, 15-21 (Diehl).

¢ §.V.F. ii, frag. 1158.

4 Symposium 177 vp 4-5 (cf. 177 a 4).

¢ Phaedrus 261 a 3-4.

t Cf. Phaedrus 242 a 8-8 5 and Hermias, In Platonis
Phaedrum, Ὁ. 223, 18-19 (Couvreur): ... καλοὺς παῖδας
τίκτοντα τοὺς λόγους.

σ For this passive meaning οὗ γέννησις cf. e.g. Cornutus,
Theologia Graeca 30 (p. 58, 14 [Lang]) and Hippolytus,
Refutatio, vii, 29, 14 (p. 212, 18 [Wendland]). The erroneous
assumption that the word can have only the active meaning,
‘* procreation,’ was apparently responsible for the drastic
emendations of tie passage made in the sixteenth century
and adopted by later editors. It should be noticed, moreover,
that Hubert’s report of the readings of X in this passage is
erroneous.

31

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

lo , > \ \ , 3
(1001) τοῦ γεννήσαντος ἀρχὴ καὶ δύναμις ἐγκεκραται
“a A ἤ 4 , :
τῷ τεκνωθέντι καὶ συνέχει τὴν φύσιν, ἀπόσπασμα
καὶ μόριον οὖσαν τοῦ τεκνώσαντος. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν
7 ς / 0 .κ
Β οὐ πεπλασμένοις ὁ κόσμος οὐδὲ συνηρμοσμένοις
ποιήμασιν ἔοικεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔνεστιν αὐτῷ μοῖρα
\ , 4 ι , a « ἢ >
πολλὴ ζῳότητος" Kai θειότητος, ἣν ὁ θεὸς ἐγ-
/ > 795 ¢ ie A. bie te \ ,
κατέσπειρεν ap” ἑαυτοῦ τῇ ὕλῃ" Kal κατέμιξεν,
εἰκότως ἅμα πατήρ τε τοῦ κόσμου, ζῴου γεγονό-
τος, καὶ ποιητὴς ἐπονομάζεται
2. Τούτων δὲ μάλιστα τῆς [[λάτωνος ἅπτο- ἑ
, , er, > ee ae ΄, ;
μένων δόξης, ἐπίστησον εἰ κἀκεῖνος λεχθήσεται.
πιθανῶς" ὅτι, δυεῖν ὄντων ἐξ ὧν ὁ κόσμος συνέ-
στῆκε, σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς, τὸ μὲν οὐκ ἐγέννησε
θεὸς ἀλλά, τῆς ὕλης παρασχομένης, ἐμόρφωσε καὶ
συνήρμοσε, πέρασιν οἰκείοις καὶ σχήμασι δήσας
( καὶ ὁρίσας τὸ ἄπειρον' ἡ δὲ ψυχή, νοῦ μετασχοῦσα
καὶ λογισμοῦ καὶ ἁρμονίας, οὐκ ἔργον ἐστὶ τοῦ

=<

1 τοῦ τεκνώσαντος -omitted by n.
2 ἔρικεν -omitted by B.
3 ἔστιν -J.
4 ζωότητος πολλὴ -Β.
5 ἐφ᾽ -J, τι
6 τῇ ἕλη -Χ.
ὀνομάζεται -ε.
8 κἀκεῖ -J, ρ΄.

9 ὁ E 3 δυοῖν -J, gz; B, €, ἢ.

a ........-...-΄ ς΄. --ῦΠ5..-.ρ΄π.....-΄΄...νϑν.΄ῤ.ᾷν0........Ν.1τ.ὕ0...---.

7

“ΟἹ De Sera Numinis Vindicta 559 dD (τὸ γεννηθὲν οὐχ
ὥς τι δημιούργημα πεποιημένον ἀπήλλακται τοῦ γεννήσαντος) 3
S.V.F. ii, p. 308, 15-18; [Galen], Ad Gaurum x, 4 (p. 47,
12-15 [Kalbfleisch]) ; and contra Philoponus, De Aeternitate
Mundi xiii, 9 (pp. 500, 26-501, 12 [Rabe]}).

32

PLATONIC QUESTIONS u, 1001

or force emanating from the parent is blended in the
progeny * and cohibits its nature, which is a frag-
ment or part of the procreator.? Since, then, the
universe is not like products that have been moulded
or fitted together but has in it a large portion of
vitality and divinity, which god sowed from himself
in the matter © and mixed with it, it is reasonable
that, since the universe has come into being a living
thing, god be named at the same time father of it
and maker.

2. While this most nearly coincides with Plato’s
opinion, consider whether there will be plausibility
in the following statement also: There are two con-
stituent parts of the universe, body and soul.4 The
former god did not beget ; but, matter having sub-
mitted itself to him, he formed and fitted it to-
gether ὁ by binding and bounding the unlimited with
suitable limits and shapes.f The soul, however, when
it has partaken of intelligence and reason and con-

> Cf. S.V.F. i, frag. 128 including Plutarch, De Cohibenda
Ira 462 τ.

CCF. Quaest. Conviv. 118 ἃ (. . . ἄλλῃ δὲ δυνάμει τοῦ θεοῦ

τῇ ὕλῃ γόνιμον ἀρχὴν . .. ἐντεκόντος) and Plato, Timaeus
41 c 7-p 1, where the figure of “ sowing ᾿ is used but not in
connexion with the vitalization of the universe, for which c/.
Timaeus 36 Ὁ 8-£ 5.

4 Cf. Albinus, Epitome xiii, 1 (p. 73, 4-5 [Louis] =p. 168,
6-7 [Hermann}) ; Plato, Timaeus 34 a 8—B 4 and 36 Dp 8-
= 1,

eT. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 B-c (τὴν δ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ
iy . . ἐμπαρασχεῖν. eae ἔταξε καὶ διεκόσμησε καὶ συνήρμοσε

) and De Iside 372 F (... χώρα καὶ ὕλη . . . παρέχουσα

ΠΆΡΕ ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἐκείνῳ.

7 Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 719 c-r and De An. Proc. in Timaeo
1048 ὁ. For the figure of the “ bond ” cf. Timaeus 31 ς 1—
32 c 4 and for the “ binding” of the unlimited by limit
Philebus 27 p 9.

33

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1001) θεοῦ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ μέρος, οὐδὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ
Kat’ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γέγονεν.

ZHTHMA I”

3 “» an ~
Ev τῇ [Πολιτείᾳ [γοῦν] τοῦ" παντὸς ὥσπερ
ἡ δὶ γραμμῆς τετμημένης εἰς" ἄνισα τμήματα,
πάλιν τέμνων ἑκάτερον τμῆμα εἰς δύο ἀνὰ τὸν
αὐτὸν λόγον, τό τε τοῦ ὁρωμένου γένους" καὶ τὸ
~ / ~
τοῦ νοουμένου, τέσσαρα τὰ πάντα ποιήσας τοῦ
ron) a > ~
μὲν νοητοῦ πρῶτον ἀποφαίνει TO περὶ τὰ πρῶτα
Uy , A > ~
εἴδη, δεύτερον TO μαθηματικόν, τοῦ δ᾽. αἰσθητοῦ
πρῶτον μὲν τὰ στερέμνια σώματα, δεύτερον δὲ
,“ 3
τὰς εἰκόνας καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα τούτων: καὶ κριτήριον"
D ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀποδίδωσιν ἴδιον, νοῦν μὲν
τῷ πρώτῳ διάνοιαν δὲ τῷ μαθηματικῷ" τοῖς δ᾽
’ 6 A ἢ > , δὲ ἊἋ 10 tle? ἫΝ
αἰσθητοῖς πίστιν, εἰκασίαν δὲ Tots’ περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα
3 -
Kal Tas εἰκόνας. τί οὖν διανοηθεὶς Eis’ ἄνισα τμή-
1 καὶ -omitted by J, g; ἀλλὰ καὶ -all other mss.
2 New question distinguished by Wyttenbach.
3 [γοῦν] -deleted by Wyttenbach; γοῦν τοῦ -X, KE, B, «,
n; γοῦν -J, g. 4 εἰς -omitted by J, g.
5 γένους -X, E!, ες n, Plato (Republic 509 pv 8); γένος -J,
g, B, E? (os superscript over ous).

’ Hubert (τέτταρα [ra] -Wyttenbach) ; ; περὶ τὰ -J ; παρὰ τ
-all other Mss. ; μέρη δ᾽ (1.6. μέρη τέσσαρα) - -Bernardakis, aes

basileios (Athena, x [1898], p. 225). » μαθητικόν -J}, ε:
8 κριτηρίῳ -J, δ. ® μαθητικῷ -J, 8".
10 δὲ τῆς -J, g, ἢ. 11 εἰς -omitted by J, 5 Β2

....-...-...-. Ρ΄΄ΠΡὅὄἧΠἷἝἷὙΠἷὔἷΠὅΠ΄“΄“΄Π΄Π ΄΄΄΄΄΄.- .-.....:..΄.--Ὃὦἃὦ΄΄'ὦΚ...-.-..-. .... -.

α Cf. 1003 a infra and De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 Ἐ eee
1016 B (quoting Timaeus 36 © 6—37 a 1). ἁρμονία, which I
regularly translate ‘ concord,” means not “᾿ harmony ”’ in
the modern sense of notes played or sung together as
‘‘ chords ” but generally a “ fitting together ἢ and in ninsic
such a fitting together of sequential sounds to produce a tune
ora“ scale’ (e.g. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1021 8 infra) ; and

34

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 11-10, 1001

cord,* is not merely a work but also a part of god
and has come to be not by his agency but both from
him as source and out of his substance.?

QUESTION II

1. In the Republic ¢ he likens the sum of things to a
single line that has been divided into unequal seg-
ments, again divides into two in the same ratio each
of the two segments, that of the visible class and
that of the conceptual, and, having made four in
all, declares first of the intelligible segment that of
the primary ideas, second the mathematical, and
first of the perceptible segment the solid bodies and
second the semblances and images of these. Also
to each of the four he assigns its own peculiar
criterion: intelligence to the first and thought to
the mathematical segment and to the perceptibles
belief and conjecture to matters of images and
semblances. What, then, did he have in mind when
he divided the sum of things into unequal? seg-
of harmony in this sense the theory is ἡ ἁρμονική (e.g. 1001 F
infra).

> Cf. De Sera Numinis Vindicta 559 pv (. .. ἐξ αὐτοῦ γάρ,
οὐχ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, γέγονεν ὥστ᾽ ἔχει τι Kal φέρεται τῶν ἐκείνου μέρος
ἐν ἑαυτῷ .. .) and see Jones, Platonism of Plutarch, Ὁ. 10,
n. 15 and p. 105; Η. Dérrie, Museum Helveticum, xxvi
(1969), p. 222 and Philomathes : Studies ...in Memory of
Philip Merlan (The Hague, 1971), pp. 40-41.

¢ Republic 509 p 6—511 £ 5.

4 Even in antiquity some, apparently reading ἀν᾽ ἴσα or ica
in Republic 509 ἢ 6 (cf. dv, ἴσα -cod. ΕἾ, tried to explain why
Plato had divided the line into equal segments (Iamblichus,
De Comm. Math. Scientia, p. 36, 15-23 [Pseudo-Archytas,
frag. 3, Nolle] and p. 38, 15-28 [Festa] ; Scholia in Platonis
Rem Publicam 509 p [vi, p. 350, 9-16, Hermann]) ; but con-

trast Proclus, Jn Platonis Rem Publicam i, p. 288, 18-20 and
26-27 (Kroll).

35

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1001) para’ τὸ πᾶν ἔτεμε; ὖ καὶ πότερον τῶν τμημά-
τῶν, τὸ νοητὸν ἢ τὸ αἰσθητόν, μεῖζόν ἐστιν; αὐτὸς
γὰρ οὐ δεδήλωκε.

Δόξει δ᾽ αὐτόθεν μὲν εἶναι μεῖζον τὸ αἰσθητόν"
ἡ γὰρ ἀμέριστος οὐσία καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὸν ὡσαύτως
ἔχουσα τῶν νοητῶν ἐστιν εἰς βραχὺ συνηγμένη"
καὶ καθαρόν, ἡ δὲ σκεδαστὴ περὶ τὰ σώματα καὶ
περιπλανὴς τὸ αἰσθητὸν παρέσχεν. ἔτι τὸ μὲν ἀσώ-
ματον πέρατος οἰκεῖον, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τῇ μὲν ὕλῃ"
ἄπειρον καὶ ἀόριστον αἰσθητὸν δὲ γιγνόμενον" ὅταν

E ὁρισθῇ μετοχῇ τοῦ νοητοῦ. ἔτι, καθάπερ αὐτῶν
τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἕκαστον εἰκόνας ἔχει πλείους καὶ
Ἁ Ἁ ᾽} Α i > 3 ag | ,
σκιὰς καὶ εἴδωλα καὶ ὅλως ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς παραδείγμα-
τος πάμπολλα μιμήματα γίγνεσθαι καὶ φύσει καὶ
τέχνῃ υνατόν ἐστιν, οὕτως ἀνάγκη τὰ ἐνταῦθα
τῶν ἐκεῖ πλήθει διαφέρειν κατὰ τὸν [ἰλάτωνα
παραδείγματα καὶ ἰδέας τὰ νοητὰ" τῶν αἰσθητῶν
ὥσπερ εἰκόνων ἢ ἐμφάσεων ὑποτιθέμενον. ἔτιδ

” ϑῶ A e tp / *\9 3 > /
τῶν εἰδῶν ἡ νόησις <- νόησιν δ᾽)" ἐξ ἀφαιρέσεως

ἔτ, Ἔ : τὰ τμήματα -X, J, 2, «, 1

Ξ τι. Β: ἔτεμνε -X, J, G. €, Nl.

ὁ συνημμ ἕνη τε.
4 τῇ ὕλῃ μὲν -Benseler (but ef. Bolkestein, Adversaria,
pp. 98-99 and Ρ. 105).

5 γίγνεται μόνον -Bernardakis (but cf. De Exilio 599 B-c
and Wyttenbach, Animadversiones on 40 p).

6 Stephanus ; νοήματα -Μ88.

7 ὑποτιθεμένων J; g. ὃ ἔτι -Leonicus : ἕν -Mss.

9Ὴ. C.3 ἡ νόησις ἐξ -μ88.; τὴν νόησιν ἐξ -Leonicus ;
νόησιν ἐξ -Stephanus.

α Cf. the argument of Pseudo-Brontinus, μεῖζον . .. τὸ
διανοατὸν τῶ νοατῶ, quoted and commented upon by Iambli-
chus, De Comm. Math. Scientia, pp. 34, 20-35, 26 (Festa).
> This terminology comes from Timaeus 35 a 1-6 and 37 a
5-6. Cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1012 B, 1014 p, and 1022

36

PLATONIC QUESTIONS m1, 1001

ments? And which of the segments is larger, the
intelligible or the perceptible ? For he has not made
it clear himself.

On the face of it the perceptible segment would
seem to be larger,* for the indivisible and invariably
identical being of the intelligibles is narrowly and
purely concentrated but the perceptible segment was
provided by the dispersed and erratic being of
bodies. Moreover, incorporeality is proper to
limit,° whereas body, while in matter it is unlimited
and indefinite, becomes perceptible whenever it is
bounded by virtue of participation in the intelligible.4
Moreover, just as each of the perceptibles them-
selves has a multiplicity of semblances and shadows
and images and as generally both in nature and in
art it is possible for numerous copies to come from a
single pattern, so the things of this world must sur-
pass in number the things of that world according to
Plato’s supposition that the intelligibles are patterns,
that is ideas, of which the perceptibles are as sem-
blances or reflections.¢ Moreover, the ideas are the
objects of intellection 4 {; and intellection) he in-

E-F ; De Defectu Orac. 428 8 and 430 F; and further with ἡ
σκεδαστὴ ... καὶ περιπλανής De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1023 c
and 1024 a, Quaest. Conviv. 718 p and 719 Ε.

¢ Cf. De Comm. Not. 1080 Ἑ (τὸ δὲ πέρας σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν).

4 See 1001 8 supra and note /f there but especially De An.
Proc. in Timaeo 1013 ὁ (τῆς μὲν ὕλης τὸ μετοχῇ . . . τοῦ
νοητοῦ μορφωθὲν εὐθὺς ἁπτὸν καὶ ὁρατόν ἐστιν).

ε Cf. Areius Didymus, Epitomes Frag. Phys. 1 (Dox.
Graeci, p. 477 a 5-16 and 8 4-12) =Eusebius, Praep. Evang.
xi, 23, 3-4 and Albinus, Epitome xii, 1 (Louis) =pp. 166, 37-
167, 5 (Hermann).

t Republic 511 Ὁ 8 ; cf. Timaeus 52 a 1-4 and 28 a 1-2 with
Philebus 62 a 2-5, and n.b. Republic 534 a, where νόησις
refers to the two upper segments of the line together.

37

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1001) καὶ περικοπῆς" σώματος ἐπάγει, TH τῶν μαθημά-
tov’ τάξει καταβιβάζων ἀπὸ τῆς ἀριθμητικῆς ἐπὶ
γεωμετρίαν, εἶτα μετὰ ταύτην ἐπ᾽ ἀστρολογίαν,
2, 2% 4 A A K ,

Ε ἐπὶ πάσαις δὲ τὴν ἁρμονικὴν τιθείς" γίγνεται γὰρ
τὰ Lev’ γεωμετρούμενα, τοῦ ποσοῦ μέγεθος προσ-
λαβόντος". τὰ δὲ στερεά, τοῦ μεγέθους βάθος'
τὰ δ᾽ ἀστρολογούμενα, τοῦ στερεοῦ κίνησιν: τὰ
δὲ ἁρμονικά, τῷ κινουμένῳ σώματι φωνῆς προσ-
γενομένης. ὅθεν ἀφαιροῦντες φωνὴν μὲν τῶν κι-
νουμένων κίνησιν δὲ τῶν στερεῶν βάθος δὲ τῶν

1002 ἐπιπέδων, μέγεθος δὲ τῶν ποσῶν, ἐν αὐταῖς γε-
νησόμεθα ταῖς νοηταῖς ἰδέαις, οὐδεμίαν διαφορὰν
> ’ 8 4 > Ζ Ἁ αἱ Δ \ 4 6
ἐχούσαις" πρὸς ἀλλήλας κατὰ TO Ev καὶ μονάδα
νοουμένζαις).ἷ οὐ γὰρ ποιεῖ μονὰς ἀριθμόν, ἂν

1 περισκοπῆς -J, g- 2 Leonicus ; μαθητῶν -Mss.

γίγνεται μὲν γὰρ τὰ Εν τ λυ ταν -J, g.

προλαβόντος -J*. 5 EK, Β, ε: ἐχούσας -X, J, g, n.

μονάδα -H. Ὁ. ; μόνον -mss.; [καὶ] μόνον -Bury.

7 Pohlenz; νοοῦμεν -X, E, B, ε, n; omitted by J, g;
νοούμενον -Diibner.

* The course of studies in Republic 525 5 3—531 τ 6 is
meant. According to Plato (Republic 531 p 7—535 a 2) the
_ whole of this is a progressive course of training leading up to
dialectic, the method which alone reveals the ideas; but
καταβιβάζων here implies that it is instead a graduated descent
and departure from the ideas, and hence it is inferred that
graduated abstraction in the reverse order (cf. ὅθεν ἀφαιροῦν-
res... [1001 F tnfra}) will bring one to the ideas them-
selves.
> Because of ra δὲ στερεά infra and Republic 528 a 6-x 2
it has been thought that stereometry must have been men-
tioned after γεωμετρίαν, but the latter by itself could have
been meant to include both plane and solid geometry (cf.
Non Posse Suaviter Vivi 1093 pv and Moralia vii, p. 113,
11-14 [Bernardakis] =vii, p. 90, 11-14 [Sandbach]; Proclus,
In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 39, 8-10 [Friedlein]).
¢ With this use of μέγεθος for extension in a single plane

38

oo » ©

PLATONIC QUESTIONS πὶ, 1001-1002

troduces as a result of abstraction or lopping away
of body when in the order of studies he leads down 4
from arithmetic to geometry and then after this ὃ to
astronomy and crowns all with the theory of har-
mony, for the objects of geometry are the result
when quantity has taken on extension,° the solids
when extension has taken on depth, the objects of
astronomy when solid body has taken on motion,
and the objects of harmonics when sound has been
added to the body in motion. Hence by abstracting
sound from the things in motion and motion from the
solids and depth from the planes and extension from
the quantities we shall arrive at the intelligible ideas
themselves,? which do not differ from one another
at all when conceived in respect of their singularity
and unity.¢ For unity does not produce number un-

ef. Sextus, Adv. Math. vii, 73 (=Gorgias, frag. B 3 [D.-K.}),
where σῶμα, characterized as having three dimensions, is dis-
tinguished from μέγεθος ; Aristotle, Metaphysics 1053 a 25-
26, where the particular examples of μέγεθος are only μῆκος
and πλάτος : and the definition of line as μέγεθος ἐφ᾽ ἕν
διαστατόν (Proclus, Jn Primum Euclidis El. Lib., Ὁ. 97, 7-8
[ Friedlein]).

4 Cf. Albinus (L’pitome x, 5 [Louis] =p. 165, 14-17 [Her-
mann]) for god like the point conceived κατ᾽ ἀφαίρεσιν (also
Clement, Stromata v, xi, 71, 2-33; νι, xi, 90, 4). Plato did
not say or imply that the ideas can be reached by such a pro-
cedure, though Aristotle contended that those who posited
the ideas did so by an invalid extension of the kind of abstrac-
tion legitimately used in mathematics (Physics 193 Ὁ 35—
194a7; cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato ..., pp.
203-204).

¢ Cf. [Plutarch], De Placitis 877 8= Dox. Graeci, p. 282,
17-25 (ὁ yap νοῦς κατὰ μονάδα θεωρεῖται . . . τὰ yap εἴδη ταῦτα
πάντα καὶ γένη κατὰ μονάδας εἰσί) ; Sextus, Adv. Math. x, 258
(ἑκάστη ἰδέα κατ᾽ ἰδίαν μὲν λαμβανομένη ἕν εἶναι λέγεται .. .) 5

and Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 100, 4-8 (Hiller).
39

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1002) μὴ τῆς ἀπείρου δυάδος ἅψηται" ποιήσασα δὲ
οὕτως ἀριθμόν, εἰς στιγμὰς εἶτα γραμμὰς ἐκ de?
τούτων εἰς ἐπιφανείας καὶ βάθη καὶ σώματα
πρόεισι καὶ σωμάτων ποιότητας ἐν πάθεσι γιγνο-
μένων. ἔτι τῶν μὲν νοητῶν" ἕν κριτήριον ὁ νοῦς"
καὶ γὰρ ἡ διάνοια νοῦς ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς
ὥσπερ ev* κατόπτροις ἐμφαινομένων" τῶν νοητῶν.
ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων γνῶσιν ὑπὸ πλήθους
πέντε δυνάμεις καὶ διαφορὰς αἰσθητηρίων ἡ φύσις
ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν" καὶ οὐ πάντα φωρᾶται ταύταις ἀ)

Β ἐκφεύγει πολλὰ διὰ" μικρότητα τὴν αἴσθησιν. ἔτι,
ὥσπερ" ἡμῶν ἑκάστου συνεστῶτος ἔκ τε τῆς" ψυ-
χῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος μικρόν ἐστι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν
καὶ νοερὸν ἐν πολλῷ τῷ τῆς σαρκὸς ὄγκῳ κεκρυμ-

μι

δὲ -omitted by B; three points superscript over δὲ -E.

. σώματος -J. 3 τὸ μὲν νοητὸν -8΄.

4 éy-omitted by B.

5. B, E* (ἐμ superscript) ; ἐκφαινομένων -all other mss.

6 εἰς -J 3 διὰ -all other mss. (g over erasure).

7 μακρότητα -J, ΒΗ: μικρότητα -all other mss. (μι over
erasure ~g).

8. ἔτι, ὥσπερ -Wyttenbach; ἐν ᾧ καίπερ -MSS.3 ἐν @ καὶ
ὥσπερ -Nogarola. τῆς χάρη δ by B.

« Cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1012 Ἐ and De Defectu Orar.
428 r—429 Bp; Aristotle, Metaphysics 1081 a 14-15, 1088 ἢ
28-35, and 1091 a 4-5. For the further derivation of points,
lines, ete. which follows cf. Theophrastus, Metaphysics 6 4
23-8 5; Alexander Polyhistor in Diogenes Laertius, viii, 25 ;
Sextus, Adv. Math. Xs 276-283 and Pyrrh. Hyp, iii, 153-154.

ὑ Cf. ποιότητα καὶ χρῶσιν .. . ἐν πεντάδι (Nicomachus in
lamblichus, Theolog. Arith., Ὁ. 74, 11-12 [De Falco}) and πε-
ποιωμένῳ δὲ σώματι πεμπτάς (Proclus In Platonis Timaeum
iii, p. 382, 15 and ii, p. 270, 8 [Dieh]}).

eS Quaest. Conviv. 718 Ἐ (πᾶσι μὲν οὖν τοῖς καλουμένοις
μαθήμασιν ὥσπερ . . κατόπτροις ἐμφαίνεται τῆς τῶν νοητῶν
ἀληθείας ἴχνη καὶ eiBashe) s ; Syrianus, Aetaph., p. 82, 22-25;

40

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 111, 1002

less it comes into contact with the unlimited dyad ;
and, when it has thus produced number, it passes
on into points and then lines and from these into
surfaces and depths and bodies and qualitics ὃ of
bodies in process of modification. Moreover, of the
intelligibles there is a single criterion, the intelli-
gence, for thought too is intelligence concerning the
intelligibles that are reflected in the mathematical
objects as in mirrors.° For the cognition of bodies,
however, nature, impelled by their multiplicity, gave
us five faculties and distinctive sense-organs ; and
these do not detect all bodies, but many by reason
of their minuteness elude sense-perception. More-
over, just as in each of us, whose constituent parts
are soul and body, the ruling and intellectual faculty
is small, buried in the mass of flesh which is large,@
Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., Ὁ. 4, 18-24 and p. 11,
5-7 (friedlein) ; Anon. Proleg. to Platonic Philosophy viii,
11-12 (p. 37 [Westerink] =Platonis Dialogi vi, p. 214, 1
(Hermann]); Scholia in Rem Publicam 509 p (vi, p. 350, 30
and p. 351, 2 [Hermann]). This notion that the objects of
διάνοια are images of the ideas in the highest segment of the
line still persists (cf. A. Wedberg, Plato’s Philosophy of
Mathematics {Stockholm, 1955], p. 105), although Plato
never says this but asserts rather that, while διάνοια employs
as likenesses sensible figures in the third segment, its objects
in this procedure are the idea of the square or the idea of the
diagonal, which are νοητὰ μετὰ ἀρχῆς (Republic 510 pv 5—
511 a 1 and 511 pv 2; cf. P. Shorey, Plato’s Republic ii

{.C.L.], Ὁ. 116, note 6 and p. 206, note a).
¢ ‘The souls that rise from the body after death, ἀχλύν τινα
καὶ ζόφον ὥσπερ πηλὸν ἀποσειομένους (De Genio Socratis 591
"). are said to be τὸν ὄγκον εὐσταλεῖς (De Sera Numinis
lindicta 564 a, cf. Non Posse Suaviter Vivi 1105 p). Cf.
...€ls τὸν ὄγκον τὸν παχὺν τοῦτον εἰσκρίνονται (Proclus, Jn
Platonis Timaeum, iii, p. 297, 23-24 [Diehl]) ; ὁ δῆμος πλέον
ἢ ὁ ἄρχων, Kat TO σῶμα πλέον ἢ ἡ ψυχή (Maximus of Tyre,
Philos. vii, τὶ ἃ =p. 77, 10-11 [Hobein]); and what Plutarch
41

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1002) μένον, οὕτως εἰκὸς ἔχειν ἐν τῷ παντὶ τὸ νοητὸν
πρὸς τὸ αἰσθητόν." καὶ γὰρ ἄρχει τὰ νοητὰ τῶν
σωματικῶν, ἀρχῆς δὲ πάσης πλέον τὸ ἐξ αὐτῆς καὶ
μεῖζον.

2. IIpos δὲ τοὐναντίον εἴποι τις ἂν πρῶτον ὅτι
συγκρίνοντες (τὰ αἰσθητὰ τοῖς νοητοῖς τρόπον
τινὰ τὰ θνητὰ τοῖς θείοις" ἐξισοῦμεν: ὁ γὰρ θεὸς
ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς. ἔπειτα πανταχοῦ δήπου τὸ
περιεχόμενον ἔλαττόν ἐστι τοῦ περιέχοντος, ἡ δὲ

C τοῦ παντὸς φύσις τῷ νοητῷ περιέχει τὸ αἰσθητόν"
ὁ γὰρ θεὸς τὴν ψυχὴν εἰς τὸ μέσον θεὶς διὰ παντός
τ᾽ ἔτεινε καὶ ἔτι ἔξωθεν" τὰ σώματα! αὐτῇ περιε-
κάλυψεν, ἔστι δ᾽ ἀόρατος ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ πάσαις ταῖς
αἰσθήσεσιν ἀναίσθητος ὡς ἐν τοῖς Νόμοις εἴρηται.
διὸ καὶ φθαρτὸς ἡμῶν εἷς ἕκαστός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ

παντὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν καὶ τὸ νοητόν -J,

ὅτι -omitted by J, gz. 3 «τὰν μμἐὴ ἐὰν by Stephanus.

θείοις -Stephanus ; θεοῖς -X, J, 8, €, Π : νοητοῖς -E, 1}.

ἔτι ἔξωθεν -Hubert (cf. Timaeus 84. Β 4); ἐπέξωθεν -X, ;

Ei, By Ἐπ ἔξωθεν -J, δ.
8 τὸ σῶμα -Timaueus 34 Β 4.

a ὦ Ὁ =

a eee _—————— es

says of the ἡγεμονικόν Rabe a to the Stoics (De Comm.
Not. 1084 B).

4 Kor the argument from microcosm to macrocosm cf.
Plato, Philebus 29 a—30 a.

> Cf. Sextus, Adv. Math. Χ, 251-253.

¢ See 1003 εκ infra (τῆς μὲν ἀρχῆς ἐγγυτέρω τὸ ἔλαττον) and
cf. De Comm. Not. 1077 κ-8 and Quaest. Conviv. 636 κ-ἰ :
Aristotle, De Gen. Animal. 788 a 13-17 ; De Caelo 271 Ὁ 11-
13; De Motu Animal. 701 b 24-28.

4 See De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1016 B, where god is identi-
fied with τῶν νοητῶν . . . τοῦ ἀρίστου of Timaeus 37 a 1 (cf,
however, for the meaning of νοητῶν in this phrase of Plato’s
Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato . .., p. 605 and
Gnomon, xxv [1953], p. 372, n. 1).

42

PLATONIC QUESTIONS ru, 1002

such in the sum of things is likely to be the relation
of the intelligible to the perceptible. For in fact
the intelligibles are principles of the corporeals,?
and every principle is exceeded in number and size
by that which comes from it.°

2. To the contrary, however, one might say first
that in comparing <the) perceptibles with the in-
telligibles we are in a way putting mortal things on
a level with the divine, for god is among the intel-
ligible entities.¢ In the second place, what is en-
compassed is in all cases surely less than that which
encompasses ; and the nature of the sum of things
encompasses the perceptible with the intelligible,¢
for god, having placed the soul in the middle,
stretched it out through everything and further en-
veloped the bodies with it on the outside,’ and the
soul is invisible and imperceptible to all the senses,
as has been said in the Laws.9 That is also why
each one of us is subject to destruction but the

ε Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam i, p. 289, 6-18
(Kroll).

7 Timaeus 34 B 3-4 (where διὰ παντός means through all
the body of the universe, referred to by αὐτοῦ which Plutarch
omits after εἰς τὸ μένον: as he changes τὸ σῶμα in Β 4 to τὰ
σώματα [cf. 34 κα 2]); cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1023 a
infra.

9 Laws 898 κε 1-2, where ἀναίσθητον πάσαις τοῦ σώματος
αἰσθήσεσι is followed by νοητὸν δ᾽ εἶναι (for the meaning of
which cf. Gnomon, xxv [1953], p. 372, ἢ. 1). The possible
influence of this passage upon Plutarch’s treatment of the
soul as ‘*‘ intelligible ’’ and upon the doxographical statements
that Plato held the soul to be οὐσία νοητή ({Plutarch], De
Placitis 898 ¢ = Dox. Graeci, p. 386 a 16; ef. p. 386 t 5 [Theo-
doretus and Nemesius]) is overlooked by H. Dorrie, who
asserts ‘‘ Niemals bezeichnet Platon die Seele als vonrov...”
(Porphyrios’ “ Symmikta Zetemata”’ {Miinchen, 1959], p.
187).

43

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1002) κόσμος οὐ φθαρησόμενος" ἡμῶν μὲν γὰρ ἑκάστου"
τὴν ζωτικὴν δύναμιν ἐντὸς περιέχει τὸ νητοει-
δὲς καὶ διαλυτόν, ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ τοὐναντίον ὑπὸ

τῆς κυριωτέρας ἀρχῆς" καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὡσαύτως
ἐχούσης ἀεὶ σῴζεται τὸ σωματικὸν ἐν μέσῳ περι-
ἐχόμενον. καὶ μὴν ἀμερές γεῖ λέγεται καὶ ἀμέ-
ριστον τὸ μὲν σῶμα μικρότητι, τὸ δ᾽ ἀσώματον
D καὶ νοητὸν ὡς ἁπλοῦν καὶ εἰλικρινὲς καὶ καθαρὸν
ἁπάσης ἑτερότητος" καὶ διαφορᾶς. καὶ ἄλλως εὖ-
ηθές ἐστι τοῖς σωματικοῖς τεκμαίρεσθαι περὶ τῶν
ἀσωμάτων. τὸ γοῦν νῦν ἀμερὲς μὲν καλεῖται
καὶ ἀμέριστον ἅμα δὲ πανταχοῦ ἐνέστηκε καὶ
οὐδὲν αὐτοῦ" τῆς οἰκουμένης μέρος" ἔρημόν ἐστιν,
ἀλλὰ καὶ πάθη πάντα καὶ πράξεις φθοραί τε
πᾶσαι καὶ γενέσεις at’ ὑπὸ τὸν κόσμον" ἐν τῷ
νῦν περιέχονται. κριτήριον δὲ τοῦ νοητοῦ" μόνον
>? \ ¢ ~ e \ + \ ε bd \
ἐστὶν 6 νοῦς, ws φωτὸς dys, διὰ ἁπλότητα καὶ
1 ἑκάστου -Stephanus ; ἕκαστος -MSS. ; ἑκάστῳ -Nogarola ;
ἑκάστοις -Bernardakis.
* ἀρχῆς -omitted by J, g.
τε -J ; omitted by g. | :
* ἑτερότητος -Apelt (Philologus, hxii [ 1903}, p. 287) 9 OTE-
ρεότητος -MSS.
αὐτοῦ -X, EF, B, €, ll 3 τι ~J, £.
μέρος faces ie by g.
αἱ -l, B; Kat “A, J £; Es nN.
TOU κόσμου -΄, κ΄ (τ κοσμ “Be
9 ποῦ νοητοῦ -with these words begin ds ‘Ay B, Bonon.
C 3635, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5 (see app. crit. 999 c supra

[title}]) ; also the first words on folio 606 recto of KF, where
above them stands erased the title: ΛΘ πλατωνικὰ ζητή-

ματα ὧν οὐχ εὑρέθη ἡ ἀρχή.

our ὦῷ. oO

¢ This reason why the universe will never Hie de eo ed is
not that which is given in the Timaeus (41 4 7-3 6; cf. Plu-
tarch, Quaest. Conviv. 720 B[6 θεὸς ... ἐποίησε καὶ ποιεῖ καὶ

44.

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 111, 1002

universe is not going to be destroyed, for in our case
what is subject to mortality and dissolution encom-
passes the vital force that each one has within,
whereas in the universe on the contrary what is cor-
poreal is for ever preserved by the more sovereign
and invariably identical principle, in the middle of
which it is encompassed. Moreover, body is said
to be without parts and indivisible because of
minuteness but the incorporeal and_ intelligible
because of its simplicity and purity and freedom
from all diversity and difference.? And, besides, it
is silly to judge of things incorporeal from things
corporeal. At any rate, the now, while it is said to
be without parts and indivisible,’ is present every-
where simultaneously,? and no part of the whole
world is devoid of it; but all incidents and actions,
all cessations and commencements of being under
heaven ὁ are encompassed in the now. It is because
of the simplicity and similarity of the intelligible,
however, that its sole criterion is the intelligence as

φυλάττει διὰ παντὸς . .. τὸν Kdapov]) but may be an inference
drawn from Timaeus 36 ¥ 2-5.

δ ‘This is meant as a reply to the argument in 1001 p supra
(ἡ yap ἀμέριστος οὐσία . . . εἰς βραχὺ συνηγμένη καὶ καθαρόν

..)3 οὐ De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1022 & (chap. 91 init.). For

the combination ἑτερότης καὶ διαφορά cf. De Virtute Morali
446 πὶ (cited by Apelt); De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1015 Ἐ-Ὲ,
1026 a andc; De Comm. Not. 1083 ©; Numa xvii, ὃ (71 c).

¢ Cf. Aristotle, Physics 233 b 33—234 a 24 and Plutarch’s
criticism of the Stoics, De Comm. Not. 1081 c. |

@ Cf. Plato, Parmenides 131 B 3-5 (... ἡμέρα pia καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ
οὖσα πολλαχοῦ ἅμα ἐστὶ ...}): Aristotle, Physics 218 Ὁ 13 and
220 b 5-6 (ὁ χρόνος .. . καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ πανταχοῦ ἅμα).

¢ Uf. ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν in Timaeus 28 c 7-p 1; and for
κόσμος in this sense ef. Isocrates, Panegyricus 179; Poly-
bius, xii, 25, 7 (Timaeus); Sextus, Adv. Math. x, 174-175.

45

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

/ \ \ \ \
(1002) ὁμοιότητα" τὰ δὲ σώματα, πολλὰς διαφορὰς ἔ-
A 3 / ¥ ;
χοντα καὶ ἀνομοιότητας, ἄλλα ἄλλοις κριτηρίοις
σ > ’ ἔχ’ ’ 3 A A
E ὥσπερ ὀργάνοις ἁλίσκεσθαι πέφυκεν. ἀλλὰ μὴν
οὐδὲ τῆς" ἐν ἡμῖν νοητῆς καὶ νοερᾶς δυνάμεως
A ᾽ “ A Ἁ > ᾿ /
καταφρονοῦσιν ὀρθῶς" πολλὴ yap οὖσα Kat μεγάλη
περίεστι παντὸς τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ μέχρι τῶν θείων
ἐξικνεῖται. τὸ δὲ μέγιστον αὐτὸς ἐν Συμποσίῳ
διδάσκων πῶς δεῖ" τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς χρῆσθαι, μετ-
ἄγοντα τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν καλῶν" ἐπὶ
τὰ νοητά, παρεγγυᾷ μήτε σώματός τινος μήτ᾽
9 , NE ένα , , m_ ΒΗ
ἐπιτηδεύματος μήτ᾽ ἐπιστήμης κάλλει μιᾶς" ὑπο-
τετάχθαι καὶ δουλεύειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποστάντα τῆς περὶ
ταῦτα μικρολογίας ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τοῦ καλοῦ πέλα-
γος τρέπεσθαι.

ZHTHMA A’
Te δήποτε," τὴν ψυχὴν ἀεὶ πρεσβυτέραν ἀποφαί-
“- ~ 2 ’ ’
νων τοῦ σώματος αἰτίαν τε τῆς ἐκείνου γενέσεως

| ἄλλοις ἄλλα -J (corrected by J*), g, Bonon. C 3635, Voss.
16, Escorial T-11-5.

τῆς -omitted by J, g.

δὴ -a', ε-

καλῶν -omitted by J (added in margin - ἢ), g.

μηδεμιᾶς -Escorial T-11-5.

δ τίδήποτε -with these words begin γ, Tolet. 51, 5 (ef.

Class. Quart., xxi [1927], p. 167), Laurent. 80, 5 and 80, 22.

aon Ὁ @ wy

4 This answers the argument in 1002 a supra (ἔτι τῶν μὲν
νοητῶν ἕν κριτήριον . . .); and, as the subsequent words show,
διὰ ἁπλότητα Kat ὁμοιότητα refers to the homogeneity of the
intelligible (cf. Adv. Colotem 1114. Ὁ [. . . ὁμοιότητι πρὸς αὑτὸ
καὶ τῷ μὴ δέχεσθαι διαφορὰν . . .|) and not to a similarity of
intelligence and intelligible or of vision and light.

> The νοῦς is the νοερὰ δύναμις in us (cf. 1002 B supra: τὸ

46

PLATONIC QUESTIONS i11-1v, 1002

that of light is vision *; but, since bodies have many
differences and dissimilarities, different ones are
naturally apprehended by different criteria, as it
were by different instruments. But furthermore it
is not right of them to be disdainful even of the in-
telligible and intellectual faculty ὃ in us men, for
because it is ample and stout it transcends all that
is perceptible and reaches as far as things divine.¢
The most important point, however, is that, when
in the Symposium4@ Plato explains how one must
manage the matter of love by diverting the soul
from the beautiful objects that are perceptible to
those that are intelligible, his own injunction is
not to subjugate oneself and play the slave to the
beauty of a particular body or practice or of a single
science but to desist from petty concern about these
things and turn to the vast sea of the beautiful. ¢

QUESTION IV

Wuyever, when he declares that the soul is always
senior to the body and the cause and origin of the

ἡγεμονικὸν Kat νοερόν), and Plutarch thinks that he has the
authority of Plato for treating this itself as a νοητόν (see note
g on 1002 c supra). There is therefore no reason to read into
this passage the distinction between νοητή and νοερά for
which it is cited by H. Dorrie (Porphyrios’ ‘* Symmikta
Zetemata,” p. 189, n. 5).

¢ Cf. Philo Jud., De Opificio Mundi 70-71 (i, pp. 23, 18-24,
1 [Cohn]) and R. M. Jones, Class. Phil., xxi(1926), pp. 101 ff.

¢ Symposium 210 Ὁ.

¢ Plutarch conveniently cuts short his paraphrase of the
passage, for the end and purpose of the whole progress in
the Symposiuni is the ἐπιστήμη pia of the idea of beauty (210
p6-—211 p 1; cf. Albinus, Epitome v, 5 {[Louis]=p. 157,
14-18 [Hermann] and x, 6 { Louis] =p. 165, 24-29 [Hermann)]).

47

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1002),

Ff Καὶ ἀρχήν, πάλιν φησὶν οὐκ ἂν γενέσθαι ψυχὴν
ἄνευ “σώματος οὐδὲ νοῦν ἄνευ ψυχῆς ἀλλὰ ψυχὴν
μὲν ev" σώματι νοῦν δ᾽ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ; δόξει γὰρ τὸ
σῶμα καὶ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι, συνυπάρχον ἅμα τῇ
ψυχῇ καὶ γεννώμενον ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς.

1008 “H? τὸ πολλάκις ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγόμενον ἀληθές
ἐστιν; ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἄνους ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ ἄμορφον
σῶμα συνυπῆρχον᾽ ἀλλήλοις ἀεὶ καὶ οὐδέτερον
αὐτῶν γένεσιν ἔσχεν οὐδ᾽ ἀρχήν: ἐπεὶ δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ
νοῦ μετέλαβε καὶ ἁρμονίας καὶ γενομένη διὰ OU
φωνίας ἐμῴρων' μεταβολῆς αἰτία γέγονε" TH ὕλῃ
καὶ κρατήσασα, ταῖς αὑτῆς" κινήσεσι τὰς ἐκείνης"
ἐπεσπάσατο καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν, οὕτω τὸ σῶμα τοῦ

1 ἐν -omitted by J}, g.
2 ἦ -a.
συνυπάρχοντα (τα superscript over ον) -J!; συνυπάρχον
-Voss. 16 ; συνυπάρχουσιν -Escorial T-11-5.
. ἔμφρον “J.
5. αἰτία “γέγονε -omitted by J}, g.
: κρατήσας αὐταῖς ταῖς -J}, g.
ἐκείνας -Escorial T-11-5.
ἐπέστρεψαν -J.

5 Plato, Timaeus 34 8 10—35 a 1 and Laws 896 a ὅ- 8
(with 892 a 2-c 6); see De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1013 Ἐ-Ὲ
and 1016 a-8 (where Timaeus 34 8 10—35 a 1 is quoted).

> Timaeus 30 B 3-5 (of. Albinus, 1 pitome xiv, 4 [Louis] = =p;
170, 2-3 [Hermann]: ἴσως οὐχ οἵου τε ὄντος νοῦ ἄνευ ψυχῆς
independ Here as elsewhere Plato does say that νοῦς can-
not exist apart from ψυχή (Timaeus 46 τὸ 5-6, Sophist 249 a
4-8, Philebus 30 c 9-10; cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of
Plato ..., pp. 606-607) but neither here nor anywhere that
soul cannot exist without body. This is simply a false infer-
ence from the statement that the demiurge did put soul into
the body of the universe.

¢ See note c on De Comm. Not. 1075 τ infra.

@ With what follows cf. Qurstion II, 2 (1001 B-c) supra and
De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 Β-Ὲ and 1017 a-s. In those

48

eo a

PLATONIC QUESTIONS iv, 1002-1003

latter's generation,* does he again say that soul could
not have come to be without body or intelligence
without soul either,? but soul in body and intelligence
in soul? For it would seem that the body both
exists and does not exist if it is at once coexistent
with the soul and being generated by the soul.

Or ¢ is that right which we frequently assert ? 4
For soul without intelligence ὁ and amorphous body ἢ
were always coexistent with each other, and neither
of them had generation or origin; but, when the
soul had partaken of intelligence and concord 9 and,
grown rational through consonance, had become a
cause of change for matter and had attracted and
converted the motions of the latter” by having
dominated them with its own motions,’ this is the
passages god or the demiurge, who is not mentioned in the
present Question, is the subject of statements which, here have
for subject instead soul, 7.e. intelligent soul; but this latter

according to 1001 c supra is not merely the work of god but
also a part of him.

ὁ Cf. Timaeus 44 a 8: κατ᾽ ἀρχάς τε ἄνους ψυχὴ γίγνεται,
said, however, of the particular human soul when it enters the
body.

f ore 50 p 7 and 51 a 7 (see De An. Proc. in Timaeo
1014 Ὁ [τὸ τὴν ὕλην ἀεὶ μὲν ἄμορφον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
λέγεσθαι . . .] and cf. Timaeus Locrus 94 4 [ἄμορφον δὲ καθ᾽
αὑτὰν καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον)]).

9 See note a on 100] ὁ supra.

% According to Plutarch’s own doctrine these could be
only motions induced by disorderly soul not yet grown
rational, for amorphous matter of itself would be δυνάμεως
οἰκείας ἔρημον, ἀργὸν ἐξ αὑτοῦ, ἄμοιρος αἰτίας ἁπάσης (De An.
Proc. in Timaeo 1014 r—1015 a, οὐ 1015 τ).

* See the similar language used of the effect of νοῦς on
ψυχή in De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1094. Ὁ : ἐγγενόμενος δὲ τῇ
ψυχῇ καὶ κρατήσας εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπιστρέφει. . . (ef. ‘Thévenaz,
L’ Ame du Monde, pp. 71-72); and cf. Timaeus 42 ¢ 4-ὸ 2
with Cornford’s note ad loc. (Plato’s Cosmology, p. 144, n. 2).

49

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1003) κόσμου γένεσιν ἔσχεν ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ κατα-
σχηματιζόμενον καὶ συνομοιούμενον. οὐ γὰρ ἐξ αὑ-

τῆς ἡ ψυχὴ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἐδημιούργει φύσιν

οὐδ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ σώματος ἀτάκτου
καὶ ἀσχηματίστου σῶμα τεταγμένον ἀπειργά-
σατο καὶ πειθήνιον." ὥσπερ οὖν, εἰ φαίη τις ἀεὶ
τὴν τοῦ σπέρματος" δύναμιν εἶναι μετὰ σώμα-
τος" γεγονέναι μέντοι τὸ σῶμα τῆς συκῆς ἢ τῆς"
ἐλαίας ὑ ὑπὸ σπέρματος, οὐδὲν ἐ ἐρεῖ διάφωνον" (αὐτὸ
γὰρ τὸ σῶμα, κινήσεως αὐτῷ καὶ μεταβολῆς ὑπὸ
τοῦ σπέρματος ἐγγενομένης, ἔφυ τοιοῦτο καὶ δι-
εβλάστησεν) οὕτως ἡ ἄμορφος ὕλη καὶ ἀόριστος
ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς" ἐνούσης" σχηματισθεῖσα μορφὴν
ἔσχε τοιαύτην καὶ διάθεσιν.

ZHTHMA Μ΄

. Διὰ τί, τῶν μὲν εὐθυγράμμων τῶν δὲ κυκλι-
κῶν σωμάτων καὶ σχημάτων ὄ ὄντων, τὰς τῶν εὐθυ-
γράμμων"" ἀρχὰς" ᾿ ἔλαβε τὸ ἰσοσκελὲς τρίγωνον

C καὶ τὸ σκαληνόν, ὧν τὸ μὲν τὸν κύβον συνέστησε
γῆς στοιχεῖον ὄντα τὸ δὲ σκαληνὸν τήν τε πυρα-
μίδα καὶ τὸ ὀκτάεδρον καὶ τὸ εἰκοσάεδρον, τὸ μὲν

ἀπεργάσατο “XK.
καὶ πειθήνιον ἀπειργάσατο -E}.
σώματος -Ὑ:
μετὰ τοῦ σώματος -Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5.
ἢ ~omitted by g.
καὶ -Escorial = 11-5.
διαφέρειν -J*3 διαφέρον -g (€pov over erasure); Siddopov
(op superscript over wv) -B}.
ὑπὸ τῆς νη: -omitted by X.

9. ἐνούσας -Escorial T-11-5.

τῶν δὲ κυκλικῶν . .. τῶν εὐθυγράμμων -Omitted by 4}, g.

ἀρχὴν -J?, δ.

J nao αὶ, ὦ ἢ »"

10
va

50

PLATONIC QUESTIONS τνον, 1003

way in which the body of the universe got generated
by the soul, in being fashioned by it and assimilated.
For it was not out of itself that the soul fabricated
the nature of body or out of what is non-existent
either, but out of disorderly * and shapeless body it
produced a well-ordered and disciplined ὃ one. There-
fore, just as there would be nothing inconsistent in
the assertion if one should say that the potency of
the seed is always associated with body and yet the
body of the fig or the olive has come to be by the
agency of seed (for the body itself had such and
such a growth and germination because by the
agency of the seed motion and change arose in it °),
so the amorphous and indefinite matter got such and
such a shape and disposition when it was fashioned
by the soul existing within it.

QUESTION V

1. Some bodies and figures being rectilinear and
others circular,? what was his reason for taking as
the principles of the rectilinear figures the isosceles
triangle and the scalene, the former of which pro-
duced the cube as element of earth while the scalene
produced the pyramid and the octahedron and the

» Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 720 B (ἡ μὲν ὕλη τῶν ὑποκειμένων
ἀτακτότατόν ἐστι... .) and De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1024 a-p
(οὔτε yap τὸ μὐνϑ εν» εἰλήχει τάξεως -. .).

δ Cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1029 Ἑ for the word, there
applied to the soul; but for the notion here cf. Timaeus 48 4
2-5 and 56 c 5-6.

¢ Cf. [Plutarch], De Placitis 905 a = Dox. Graeci, p. 417 a
2-5.

4 Cf. Plato, Parmenides 137 pv 8-£ 6 and 145 B 3-5;
Aristotle, De Caelo 286 b 13-16; Proclus, Jn Primum
Euclidis El. Iib., p. 144, 10-18 (Friedlein).

51

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1003) πυρὸς σπέρμα τὸ δ᾽ ἀέρος τὸ δὲ ὕδατος γενόμενον,
τὸ δὲ τῶν κυκλικῶν᾽ ὅλως παρῆκε, καίτοι μνησθεὶς
τοῦ σφαιροειδοῦς ἐν οἷς φησι τῶν κατηριθμημένων
σχημάτων ἕκαστον σώματος περιφεροῦς εἰς ἴσα
διανεμητικὸν εἶναι;

Πότερον, ὡς ὑπονοοῦσιν ἔνιοι, τὸ δωδεκάεδρον
τῷ σφαιροειδεῖ προσένειμεν, εἰπὼν ὅτι τούτῳ"
πρὸς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ὁ θεὸς κατεχρήσατο φύσιν
ἐκεῖνο διαζῳγραφῶν; καὶ γὰρ μάλιστα τῷ πλήθει
τῶν στοιχείων ἀμβλύτητι δὲ τῶν γωνιῶν τὴν

D εὐθύτητα Staduyov* εὐκαμπές ἐστι, καὶ TH περι-
τάσει καθάπερ at δωδεκάσκυτοι σφαῖραι κυκλο-
τερὲς γίγνεται καὶ περιληπτικόν"" ἔχει γὰρ εἴκοσι
γωνίας στερεάς, ὧν ἑκάστην ἐπίπεδοι περιέχουσιν
ἀμβλεῖαι τρεῖς" ἑκάστη γὰρ ὀρθῆς ἐστι καὶ πέμπτου
μορίου": συνήρμοσται δὲ καὶ συμπέπηγεν ἐκ δώδεκα
πενταγώνων" ἱπργομμάῃθ καὶ ἰσοπλεύρων, ὧν ἕκα-

1 κύκλων -Escorial T-11-5.

2 ἕτεροι (νι superscript over τε) Ξξ. 3. τοῦτο -Voss. 16.
* διέφυγεν -J1, 23 διαφυγῶν -Voss. 16}.
© παραληπτικόν -J+, g. § πανταγώνων -J}.

4 Timaeus 53 ὁ 4—55 ὁ 4 and 55 "ἢ 7—56 B 6. For Plu-
tarch’s use of γῆς στοιχεῖον and πυρὸς σπέρμα in these lines
cf. Timaeus 56 8B 5 (στοιχεῖον. καὶ σπέρμα) with Cornford’s
note (Plato’s Cosmology, p. 223, .n. 1).

ὁ Aristotle (De Caelo 286 Ὁ 27-33) interprets this as sup-
porting evidence for his thesis that the sphere is the primary
solid figure.

¢ Timaeus 55 a 3-4. Plato’s words there are ὅλου περιφε-
pots διανεμητικὸν εἰς ἴσα μέρη καὶ ὅμοια, and ὅλου περιφεροῦς
means “ the whole circumference ”’ of the sphere in which the
tetrahedron is inscribed. At this point in the Jimueus only
this, ‘‘ the simplest solid figure,” has been constructed, though
what is said of its division of the sphere in which it is inscribed
is undoubtedly meant to apply also to the four regular solids
mentioned immediately thereafter.

52

PLATONIC QUESTIONS v, 1003

icosahedron, which became the seed of fire and of
air and of water respectively,¢ but for disregarding
altogether the question of the circular figures,’ even
though he did mention the spherical in the passage
where he says ¢ that each of the figures enumerated
has the property of dividing into equal parts an en-
circling body ?

Did he, as some surmise, associate the dodeca-
hedron with what is spherical,? since he said ¢ that
god employed the former for the nature of the sum
of things in tracing the design of this ? For, furthest
withdrawn from straightness by the multitude of its
elements 7 and obtuseness of its angles, it is flexible
and like the balls that are made of twelve pieces of
leather 9 by being distended becomes circular and
circumscriptive,” for it has twenty solid angles each
of which is contained by three plane angles that are
obtuse, since each consists of a right angle and a
fifth; and it has been assembled and constructed
out of twelve equiangular and equilateral pentagons,’

¢ Cf. “ Timaeus Locrus”’ 98 πὶ (τὸ δὲ δωδεκάεδρον εἰκόνα
τῶ παντὸς ἐστάσατο, ἔγγιστα σφαίρας ἐόν) and Philoponus, De
Aeternitate Mundi xiii, 18 (pp. 536, 27-537, 2 [Rabe]).

¢ Timaeus 55 c 4-6, more accurately quoted by Plutarch
in De Defectu Orac. 430 5.

Cf. De Defectu Orac. 427 B (μέγιστον δὲ καὶ πολυμερέ-
στατον TO δωδεκάεδρον) : and for στοιχεῖον AS here used (the
ultimate constituent triangles) cf. Timaeus 54 Ὁ 6-7, 55 a 8,
55 B 3-4, and 57 c 9.

9 Cf. Plato, Phaedo 110 B 5-7 and Proclus, Jn Platonis
Timaeumi iii, Ὁ. 141, 19-24 (Diehl).

Cf. De Defectu Orac. 428 pv (ἡ δὲ τοῦ δωδεκαέδρου φύσις
περιληπτικὴ τῶν ἄλλων σχημάτων οὖσα...

* Cf. Euclid, Hlements xiii, Prop. 18, Lemma (iv, p. 340,
6-7 [Heiberg]}).
i Cf. Euclid, Elements xi, Def. 28.

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1003) στον' ἐκ τριάκοντα τῶν πρώτων σκαληνῶν τρι-
γώνων συνέστηκε" διὸ καὶ δοκεῖ τὸν ζῳδιακὸν
ἅμα καὶ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ἀπομιμεῖσθαι ταῖς διανομαῖς
τῶν μοιρῶν" ἰσαρίθμοις οὔσαις .ἡ

ῷ, Ἢ πρότερόν ἐστι κατὰ φύσιν τὸ εὐθὺ τοῦ
περιφεροῦς, μᾶλλον δὲ ὅλως πάθος τι τῆς εὐθείας
E ἡ περιφερής; κάμπτεσθαι “γὰρ λέγεται τὸ ὀρθὸν
καὶ ὁ κύκλος γράφεται κέντρῳ καὶ διαστήματι:
τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶν εὐθείας τόπος," ὑφ᾽ ἧς καὶ μετρεῖται:
τὸ γὰρ" περιέχον ἐκ τοῦ μέσου πανταχόθεν ἴσον
ἀφέστηκε. γεννᾶται δὲ καὶ κῶνος καὶ κύλινδρος
ἀπ᾽ εὐθυγράμμων, ὁ μὲν τριγώνου περὶ" μίαν
πλευρὰν μένουσαν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ πλευρᾷ καὶ τῇ βάσει
περιενεχθέντος ὁ δὲ κύλινδρος παραλληλογράμμου
ταὐτὸ τοῦτο παθόντος. ἔτι τῆς μὲν ἀρχῆς ἐγ-
γυτέρω τὸ ἔλαττον, ἐλαχίστη δὲ πασῶν" ἡ εὐθεῖα:
τῆς γὰρ περιφεροῦς τὸ μὲν LETT ἐστι κοῖλον

. ἕκαστος -Escorial T-11-5'. * μυρίων -J, σ΄.

3 οὕτως -FEscorial T-11-5. 3 τύπος -X, € Ii.

5 γὰρ -omitted by J+, g. § περὶ -omitted by g.

7 πεκονδότος -Escorial T-11-5

8 ἔτι -Leonicus; ἔστι -Escorial T-11-5; ἐπεὶ -all other
ne 9 παθῶν -X, a, A}, β' 96.ἢ

10 «ἐντός» -added here by Bernardakis (. .. κοῖλον {τὸ

ἐντὸς» -Leonicus).

α This is erroneous (cf. Heath, Manual, pp. 177-178), and
Plutarch seems to make Ammonius call attention to the fact
in De Defectu Orac, 428 A (. . . τὸ τοῦ καλουμένου δωδεκαέδρου
στοιχεῖον ἄλλο ποιοῦσιν, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο τὸ σκαληνὸν ἐξ οὗ τὴν
πυραμίδα καὶ τὸ ὀκτάεδρον καὶ τὸ εἰκοσάεδρον ὁ Πλάτων
συνίστησιν). Albinus in his Epitome xiii, 2 (p. 77 [Louis] =
pp. 168, 37-169, 2 [Hermann]}) says that each of the twelve
pentagons is divided into five triangles and each of these
consists of six triangles, but it should be observed that he
does not state what kind of triangles these are.

> Neither Plutarch here nor Albinus in his Hp:tome xiii, 2

54

PLATONIC QUESTIONS v, 1003

each of which consists of thirty of the primary scalene
triangles,* and this is why it seems to represent at
once the zodiac and the year in that the divisions
into parts are equal in number.?

2. Or is the straight naturally prior to the cir-
cular ὁ or rather the circular line simply a modifica-
tion of the straight line? For we do speak of the
bending of what is straight ὁ and the circle is de-
scribed by a centre and a distance, this latter being
the location of a straight line by which it is measured
as well,¢ for what contains the circle is at all points
equally removed from the middle. Also, both cone
and cylinder are generated by rectilinear figures, the
former when one side and the base of a triangle are
rotated about the other side, which remains fixed,
and the cylinder when this same thing happens to a
parallelogram.f Moreover, what is lesser is nearer
to the principle 7; but the straight line is the least
of all lines,” for the circular line has its <interior)
(pp. 75-77 [Louis] =pp. 168, 34-169, 3 [Hermann]}) refers to
any relation between the zodiac and the dodecahedron other
than the numerical similarity that both of them (and the year)
consist of twelve parts, each of which consists of thirty parts.

¢ Cf. Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., pp. 106, 20-
107, 10 (Friedlein).

4 Cf. Aristotle, De Incessu Animal. 708 Ὁ 22-24 and
Meteorology 386 a 1-7.

¢ Cf. Euclid, Hlements i, Post. 3 and A tpeie 4 Primum
Euclidis El. Lib. Ρ. 185, 22-25 ((Friedlein) : - . διάστημα δὲ
ἡ εὐθεῖα. ὅση γὰρ ἂν αὕτη τυγχάνῃ τοσοῦτο ἔσται τὸ ἀπόστημα
τοῦ κέντρου πρὸς πάντα τὰ μέρη τῆς περιφερείας.

7 Cf. Euclid, Hlements xi, Defs. 18 and 21.

9 See 1002 B supra and note c there.

» Cf. Archimedes, Opera Omnia iterum ed. J. L. Heiberg,
i, p. 8, 3-43 Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., Ὁ. 110,
10-26 (Friedlein) ; Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 111, 22-112. 1
(Hiller).

55

(1003)

F

1004

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

κυρτὸν δὲ TO ἐκτός. ἔτι τῶν σχημάτων οἱ
ἀριθμοὶ πρότεροι, καὶ γὰρ 7 μονὰς τῆς στιγμῆς"
ἐστι γὰρ ἡ στιγμὴ μονὰς ἐν θέσει." καὶ μὴν ἡ
μονὰς τρίγωνός ἐστι πᾶς yap τρίγωνος ἀριθμὸς
ὀκτάκις γενόμενος καὶ μονάδα προσλαβὼν γίγνε-
ται τετράγωνος" τοῦτο δὲ καὶ" τῇ μονάδι συμ-
βέβηκε". πρότερον οὖν τοῦ κύκλου τὸ τρίγωνον" εἰ
δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ εὐθεῖα τῆς περιφεροῦς. ἔτι τὸ στοι-
χεῖον eis’ οὐδὲν διαιρεῖται τῶν συνισταμένων ἐξ
αὐτοῦ, τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοις" εἰς τὸ στοιχεῖον ἡ διάλυ-
σις. εἴ τοίνυν τὸ μὲν τρίγωνον εἰς οὐδὲν περιφε-
ρὲς διαλύεται, τὸν δὲ κύκλον εἰς τέσσαρα" τρίγωνα

1 +6 -omitted by J}, g.

2 ἐνθέτως ~J}.
3 καὶ -omitted by J}, g.
* μονάδι ov ci δ θοῆς -ὃ..

ὡς -J, £.
§ τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους -J!, δ΄.
1 Alt δ. igs ΩΣ ε
ETL “J, Ῥ. εἰς τα τέτταρα -ξ.

2 Cf. Proclus, ln Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 106, 24-25
{Friedlein) ; [Aristotle], Mechanica 847 Ὁ 23—848 a 3.

> Cf. Hero Alexandrinus, Def. a’ (iv, p. 14, 13-19 [Hei-
berg]); Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 111, 14-16 (Hiller) ; Proclus,
In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 95, 21-26 (Friedlein) ;
Aristotle, Topics 108 b 26-31 and Metaphysics 1016 b 24-31
with Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato ..., pp. 131-132
and note 322 on p. 397. Contrast 1002 a supra, where unity
is said to produce numbers and then to pass on into points,
lines, and figures.

¢ The unit, being the «ἀρχή of number and not itself ἃ
number, is usually called “΄ potentially triangular,” 3 being the
first triangular number as in De An. Proc. in Timaéo 1020 Ὁ
(Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 33, 5-7 and p. 37, 15-19 [Hiller];
Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio, pp. 88, 23-89, 5
{Hoche]; Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Intro-
ductionem, p. 62, 2-5 [Pistelli]). For triangular numbers ef.

56

PLATONIC QUESTIONS v, 1003-1004

concave and its exterior convex. Moreover,
numbers are prior to figures, for the unit is itself
prior to the point because the point is a unit in
position.” Now, the unit is triangular, for every
triangular number multiplied by eight and with
addition of a unit becomes a square number, and
this is characteristic of the unit also.°. The triangle,
then, is prior to the circle 4; and, if so, the straight
line too is prior to the circular. Moreover, the
element is divided into none of the things that are
compounded out of it, whereas the other things are
subject to resolution into the element. If, then, the
triangle is resolved into nothing that is circular,
whereas the two diameters of the circle divide it into

Quaest. Conviv, 744 B (where 3 and 6 are the examples) ;
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 33, pp. 37, 7-38, 14, and p. 41, 3-8
(Hiller); Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio II, viii (pp.

87, 22-89, 16 [Hoche]). The algebraic formula is παι

and 1 conforms to this, being half of the product of itself and
2. The proposition that any triangular number multiplied
by 8 becomes a square number when 1 is added is repeated by
Iamblichus (In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem,
p. 90, 18-19 [Pistelli]) but is not by him explicitly applied to
the unit (cf, Heath, History i, p. 84 and ii, pp. 516-517 ; M.R.
Cohen and I. E. Drabkin, 4 Source Book in Greek Science
[New York, 1948], p. 9, n. 2).

4 This does not follow, for not only is the unit “ square ”’ as
well as “ triangular’ (De E' 391 a, De Defectu Orac. 429 τ ;
Nicomachus, dArithmetica Introductio, Ὁ. 91, 4-5 [Hoche] ;
Iamblichus, Jn Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem,
p. 60, 3-5 and p. 75, 11-13 [Pistelli]) but even its being tri-
angular does not prove the triangle to be a unit prior to the
circle, which can itself be regarded as analogous to the unit
(Aristotle, De Caelo 286 Ὁ 33—287 a 2; Iamblichus, op. cit.,
p. 61, 6-24 and pp. 94, 27-95, 2 [Pistelli] ; Proclus, Jn Primum
Euclidis El. Lib., pp. 146, 24-147, 5 and pp. 151, 20-152, 5
[Friedlein]).

3

57

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1004) τέμνουσιν at δύο διάμετροι, πρότερον av τῇ φύσει
καὶ στοιχειωδέστερον εἴη τοῦ κυκλικοῦ τὸ εὐθύ-
γραμμον. ὅτι τοίνυν προηγούμενον μέν ἐστι τὸ
εὐθύγραμμον" τὸ δὲ κυκλικὸν ἐπιγιγνόμενον" καὶ
συμβεβηκὸς αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰ]λάτων ἐνεδείξατο: τὴν γὰρ
γῆν ἐκ κύβων συστησάμενος, ὧν ἕκαστον" εὐθύ-
γραμμοι" περιέχουσιν ἐπιφάνειαι,͵ σφαιροειδὲς αὐ-
τῆς γεγονέναι τὸ σχῆμά" φησι καὶ στρογγύλον.
ὥστ᾽ οὐδὲν ἔδει ποιεῖν τῶν περιφερῶν ἴδιον στοι-
χεῖον, εἰ καὶ τοῖς εὐθυγράμμοις πρὸς ἀλληλά πως
συναρμοττομένοις" ὁ σχηματισμὸς οὗτος ἐπιγίγνε-
σθαι πέφυκεν.

Β 8. Ἔτι, εὐθεῖα" μὲν ἢ τε μείζων ἥ τε pLKpo-
τέρα τὴν αὐτὴν εὐθύτητα διατηρεῖ, τὰς δὲ τῶν
κύκλων περιφερείας, ἂν ὦσι σμικρότεραι, καμπυ
λωτέρας"" καὶ σφιγγομένας τῇ κυρτότητι μᾶλλον
ὁρῶμεν, av δὲ μείζους, ἀνειμένας: ἱστάμενοι γοῦν
κατὰ τὴν κυρτὴν περιφέρειαν οἱ μὲν κατὰ σημεῖον

1 κύκλου -J}, δ.

2 ὅτι τοίνυν. .. τὸ εὐθύγραμμον -omitted by a g£, Escorial
T-11-5}.

3 κυκλικόν ἐστι γινόμενον -J
“Escorial T-11-5.
* γῆν -omitted by J}, g.
ἕκαστος -J', δ : ἕκαστοι -€.
εὐθύγραμμον -J, Ε: Voss. 16. 7 ἐπιφαίνεται -J, ΕΒ.
τὸ σχῆμα γεγονέναι -Escorial T-11-5.
συναρμοττόμενος -J, g, Voss. 16],
ἔστι yap εὐθεῖα -J, g. 11 καμπυλοτέρας -B, e.

1 A \ 3 ἢ
. 8; κυκλικὸν ἐπιγενόμενον

ῳοῳω ὦ ὥ ὧν

@ Since the bases of the triangles into which the circle is
divided remain arcs of a circle, the conclusion here drawn

58

PLATONIC QUESTIONS v, 1004

four triangles, the rectilinear would be naturally prior
to the circular and more elementary than it.4
Furthermore, that the rectilinear is antecedent and
the circular supervenient and incidental was in-
dicated by Plato himself, for after making the earth
consist of cubes,’? each of which is contained by
rectilinear surfaces, he says that the shape of it has
turned out to be spherical or round.* Consequently
there was no need to postulate an element peculiar
to circuiar figures if this configuration does naturally
supervene upon rectilinears conjoined with one an-
other in a particular way.

3. Moreover, while a straight line, whatever its
length, keeps the same straightness throughout, we
see that the circumferences of circles are more
curved, that is are more highly concentrated in their
convexity, if they are smaller, and more relaxed, if
they are larger.¢ At any rate, when set up on their
convex circumference, some circles touch the under-

does not follow from the argument, with which cf. Nico-
machus, <Arithmetica Introductio II, vii, 4 (p. 87, 7-19
[Hoche]) and Simplicius, De Caelo, pp. 613, 30-614, 10 on
Aristotle, De Caelo 303 a 31-b 1.

> Timaeus 55 Ὁ 8—56 a 1.

¢ Despite φησι this is not a quotation. In fact, in the
Timaeus after 55 Ὁ 8—56 a 1 the sphericity of the earth is
referred to only by implication in 62 p 12—63 a 3 (cf. Corn-
ford, Plato’s Cosmology, p. 263, notes 1 and 2 with Phaedo
108 x 4—109 a 7 and 110 b 5-7). Misguided attempts have
been made to deny that even these passages refer to the
earth’s sphericity (cf. Lustrum, IV [1959], Nos. 660-661 and
V [1960], Nos. 1464 and 1465).

¢ Cf. John Wallis, A Treatise of Angular Sections (Lon-
don, 1684), p. 90: ‘. .. the lesser circumference is more
crooked. For it hath as much of curvity in a shorter length.
And therefore .. . it is more crooked intensively.”

59

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

¢ \ A \ ¢ A Φ /
(1004) ot δὲ κατὰ γραμμὴν ἅπτονται τῶν ὑποκειμένων
ἐπιπέδων: ὥσθ᾽ ὑπονοήσειεν ἄν τις εὐθείας κατὰ
μικρὰ πολλὰς συντιθεμένας" τὴν περιφερῆ γραμμὴν
ἀποτελεῖν.
4. Ὅρα δὲ μὴ τῶν μὲν" ἐνταῦθα κυκλικῶν καὶ
- > 4 > > ? > at re /
σφαιροειδῶν οὐδέν ἐστιν ἀπηκριβωμένον ἀλλ᾽ ἐντά-
ce καὶ περιτάσει τῶν εὐθυγράμμων ἢ μικρότητι
C τῶν μορίων τῆς διαφορᾶς λανθανούσης ἐπιφαίνεται
τὸ στρογγύλον καὶ κυκλοειδές, ὅθεν οὐδὲ κινεῖται
7 ~ 9 ~ / > / OA > >
φύσει τῶν ἐνταῦθα σωμάτων ἐγκυκλίως οὐδὲν ἀλλ
ρῶς. > / “ ‘ SP \ >
em εὐθείας ἅπαντα" τὸ δ᾽ ὄντως σφαιροειδὲς οὐκ
ἔστιν αἰσθητοῦ σώματος ἀλλὰ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τοῦ
νοῦ στοιχεῖον, οἷς καὶ τὴν κυκλοφορητικὴν᾽ κίνη-
σιν ὡς προσήκουσαν κατὰ φύσιν ἀποδίδωσιν.

1 συντεθειμένας -F'scoria} T-11-5.

2 μὲν -J4, g, Voss. 16, Bonon., Escorial T-11-5 ; omitted
by all other mss.

3 ἐντάσει -E, B, n, Escorial T-11-5; ἐνστάσει -all other
MSS.

4 κυκλοφορικὴν -E, B, n : κυκλοφορητικὸν -Escorial T-11-5.

¢ This in fact has nothing to do with the preceding state-
ment, for a circle however large will never touch the plane
at a line unless both are material, and then it will do so
however smal] it is (cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 997 b 35—
998 ἃ 4 and Alexander, Metaph., p. 200, 15-21). It does not
then support the subsequent conclusion either, to which
Plutarch himself should not have subscribed anyway, for he
held that the curvature of a circle is uniform (cf. De Facie
932 r and Class. Phil., xlvi [1951], p. 144).

> Cf. Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 54, 11-13

60

PLATONIC QUESTIONS v, 1004

lying planes at a point and others at a line. Con-
sequently one might surmise that many straight
lines when put together bit by bit produce the

circular line.

4. Consider too that none of the circular or
spherical things in this world is exactly perfect ὃ but
there is a superficial appearance of roundness and
circularity, the difference being unnoticed because
of the tension and distension of the rectilinears or
the minuteness of their parts, this being the reason
why none of the bodies in this world moves naturally
in a circle either but all move in a straight line,
whereas the really spherical is an element not of
perceptible body but of soul and intelligence,’ to
which he assigns as naturally befitting them circular
motion as well.¢

(I*riedlein) ; [Plato], Epistle vii, 343 a 5-9; and Plato,
Philebus 62 a 7-2 9.

¢ Cf. Atticus, frag. vi (Baudry) = Eusebius, Praep. Evang.
xv, 8, 7 (ii, p. 367, 13-18 [Mras]); Proclus, In Primum
Luclidis El. Lib., Ὁ. 82, 7-12 and pp. 147, 22-148, 4 (Fried-
lein). In calling the spherical, of which the natural motion is
circular (cf. De E 390 a), τῆς ψυχῆς . . . στοιχεῖον, however,
Plutarch seems to be perilously close to the identification of
soul with the Aristotelian πέμπτη οὐσία κυκλοφορητική (cf.
Cherniss, Arstotle’s Criticism of Plato ..., pp. 601-602; P.
Moraux, R,-E. xxiv [1963], cols. 1248, 37-1251, 7). Even

“ἢ materialists ’ like the Atomists and Chrysippus had
assigned the spherical to soul (cf. Aristotle, De Anima 404
a | 9 and 405 a 8-13; S.V.F. ii, frag. 815).

@ Plato, Timaeus 94, A 1-4, 36 τ 2—37 c 8, 47 B 5-c 4 ἊΣ
Laws 898 a 3-8 8 (cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato

., pp. 404-405) ; ef. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1024 c-p.

61

(1004)

D

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

ZHTHMA ς΄

ὥς ποτ΄ ἐν τῷ αἰδρῳ λέγεται τὸ τὴν Too
I] a: * Φαίδρῳ λέ > TY
πτεροῦ φύσιν, ὑφ᾽ ἧς ἄνω TO ἐμβριθὲς ἀνάγεται,"
κεκοινωνηκέναι μάλιστα τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ
θείου ;*

Πότερον ὅτι περὶ ἔρωτος ὁ λόγος ἐστί, κάλλους
δὲ τοῦ περὶ τὸ σῶμα ὁ ἔρως, τὸ δὲ κάλλος ὁμοιό-
THTL τῇ πρὸς τὰ θεῖα κινεῖ καὶ ἀναμιμνήσκει τὴν
ψυχήν; ἰῇ μᾶλλον. οὐδὲν περιεργαστέον ἀλλὰ ἁπλῶς
ἀκουστέον ὅτι, τῶν “περὶ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ψυχῆς δυνά-
μεων πλειόνων" οὐσῶν, ἡ λογιστικὴ" καὶ διανο-
ἡτικὴ μάλιστα τοῦ θείου κεκοινώνηκεν, ἣν τῶν
θείων καὶ οὐρανίων ἔφησεν; ἣν οὐκ ἀπὸ τρόπου
πτερὸν προσηγόρευσεν, ὡς τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τῶν
ταπεινῶν καὶ θνητῶν ἀναφέρουσαν.

ZHTHMA Z’

aA / € 4 A 3 U
Πῶς ποτέ φησιν ὁ Πλάτων τὴν ἀντιπερίστα-
σιν τῆς κινήσεως διὰ τὸ μηδαμοῦ κενὸν ὑπάρχειν

1 τῷ -omitted by 4, g.
2 τοῦ -omitted by Escorial T-11-5 (ἡ πτεροῦ δύναμις - Plato,
aie 246 ἢ 6).
ὁ ἄγεται -J1, αὶ (ἄγειν ἄνω -Plato, Phaedrus 246 0 6; but
for ἀνάγειν ἄνω cf. Republic 533 pv 2-3).
4 θείου -Kaltwasser (cf. 1004 p infra and Phaedrus 246
D 8); θεοῦ -Μ88.
5 πλειόνων -omitted by J}.
® λογιστικὴ -Ziegler (2-H. xxi/i [1951], col. 748, 4); δια-
λογιστικὴ -MSS.
7 ἔφυσεν -Escorial T-11-5.

@ Plato, Phaedrus 246 1 6-8.

δ Cf. Phaedrus 249 ἢ 4-—251 a ἢ and 254 8 5-7; Plutarch,
Amatorius 765 B, bp, F and 766 a, πον; Plotinus, nn. vi,
vii, 22, lines 3-19.

62

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vi-vu, 1004

QUESTION VI

In what sense is it asserted in the Phaedrus@ that
the pinion’s nature, by which what is heavy is raised
on high, is among things of the body most closely
akin to the divine ?

Is it because the subject of the discourse is love
and beauty of the body is the object of love and
beauty by its similarity to things divine stirs the
soul and makes it remember??® Or should one
rather not labour the point at all but understand
quite simply that, while there are a good many
faculties of the soul concerned with the body,° the
faculty of reason or thought, whose objects he has
said are things divine and celestial, is most closely
akin to the divine ?¢ This faculty he not inappro-
priately called a pinion because it bears the soul
up ὁ and away from the things that are base and
mortal.

QUESTION VII

1. In what sense does Plato say’ that, because
there is void nowhere, the cyclical replacement 5 of

¢ Cf. the interpretation given by Hermias, Jn Platonis
Phaedrum, p. 133, 25-30 (Couvreur).

4 Cf. Phaedo 80 » 1-3 and 84 4 7-3 4; Symposium 211 £
3—212 a 2 with Phaedrus 247 ς 6-8, 248 B 7-c 2, and 249 ¢
4-6 and Republic 611 © 1-5; and also Philebus 62 a 7-8 for
the ideas, the objects of reason or intelligence, as θεῖα.

¢ Cf. An Seni Respublica Gerenda Sit 786 Ὁ.

7 Timaeus 79 © 10—80 ς 8.

9 The process is not called ἀντιπερίστασις by Plato, but
Aristotle called it this (Physics 215 a 14-15 and 267 a 15-20
[cf. Simplicius, Phys., p. 668, 32-34; p. 1350, 31-36; and
p. 1351, 28-29]) as well as περίωσις (Parva Naturalia 472
b 6).

63

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1004) αἰτίαν εἶναι τῶν περὶ τὰς ἰατρικὰς σικύας" παθη-
μάτων" καὶ τῶν περὶ τὴν κατάποσιν" καὶ τὰ ῥι-
E πτούμενα βάρη καὶ τὰ τῶν ὑδάτων ῥεύματα καὶ
΄
κεραυνοὺς τήν τε φαινομένην πρὸς ἤλεκτρα καὶ τὴν
/ A ¢€ / 5 ¢ \ / ~A /
λίθον τὴν “HpakdAciay ὁλκὴν τάς τε τῶν φθόγ-
γων συμφωνίας ;" δόξει γὰρ ἀτόπως αἰτίαν (μίαν)
παμπόλλων καὶ “ἀνομοίων. γένεσιν ἐπάγειν" παθῶν.
2. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὴν ἀναπνοὴν ὡς γίγνεται
τῇ ἀντιπεριστάσει τοῦ ἀέρος αὐτὸς" ἱκανῶς ἀποδέ-
δειχε τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα φήσας θαυματουργεῖσθαι
τῷ κενὸν," εἶναι μηδὲν περιωθεῖν θ᾽ αὑτὰ ταῦτ᾽
3 yw \ / \ \ e ~ e
ets ἄλληλα Kai διαμείβεσθαι πρὸς τὰς αὑτῶν ἕδρας
ἰόντα, τὴν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐξεργασίαν ἡμῖν ἀφῆκε.
8. Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τὸ περὶ τὴν σικύαν᾽" τοιοῦ-
,ὔ ? ε \ ες: 9 9 α΄ 12 A a
Tov ἐστιν" ὁ περιληφθεὶς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς" πρὸς TH σαρ-
F xu μετὰ θερμότητος ἀὴρ ἐκπυρωθεὶς καὶ γενόμενος
3 σικήας “a, 8.
4 μαθημάτων -],
κατάστασιν -(}ἶἷ, 2.

4 βάρη -X, J, 8. εν Ὦ : μέρη -all other Mss.

5 Hubert τὴν λίθον τὴν Ἡράκλειον -Eseorial] ‘T-11-5;
τὸν λίθον τὸν late -Voss. 16) Ἡράκλειον -all other mss.

§ συμφθονίας -J?.

7 «μίαν» -added by Fahse (implied by versions of Ainyot
and Xylander) ; μίαν instead of αἰτίαν -Schellens (after Wyt-
tenbach) ; αἰτίαν (aivi over erasure -a D παμπόλλων -MSS.

8 ἐπάγειν -Turnebus, Xylander : ὑπάγειν -Mss.

® αὐτοῦ -J, &- d

10 H. C.3 καὶ τῷ κενὸν -Bernardakis; τε καὶ (ἰ.6. θαυμα-
τουργεῖσθαί τε καὶ εἶναι) -MSS.

11 σικήαν - ἶ, g.

12 αὐτοῦ -", g.

[2

α It was Plato’s express purpose to banish ry from
physical theory (Timaeus 80 c 2-3; cf. Cherniss, Arestotle’s
Criticism of Plato .. ., n. 306 on p. 387 sub finem). This
point is missed entirely in “ἢ Timaeus Locrus ” 101 p—102 a,

64

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vu, 100.

motion is the cause of what happens in the case of
medical cupping-instruments and in that of swallow-
ing and of weights that are thrown and of flowing
waters and of thunderbolts and of the apparent
attraction * to amber and the loadstone and of the
consonances of sounds ? For he would seem in extra-
ordinary fashion to be proposing a <single) cause as
the source of numerous and dissimilar occurrences.
2. For, while in the case of respiration he has
given an adequate exposition himself " of the way in
which it comes about by the cyclical replacement of
the air, for all the rest, after saying that these ap-
parent wonders are produced because there is no
void and these objects push themselves around into
one another and interchange in going to their own
positions,° he left it to us to work out the particulars.
3. Well then, in the first place, the case of the
cupping-instrument is like this. The air, which along
with heat it has enclosed next to the flesh, having
become fiery and finer in texture than the pores of

where respiration occurs ἑλκομένω τῶ ἀέρος ἀντὶ τῶ ἀπορ-
ῥέοντος, the cupping-instrument ἀπαναλωθέντος ὑπὸ τῶ
πυρὸς τῶ ἀέρος ἐφέλκεται τὸ ὑγρόν (cf. Hero Alexandrinus,
Pneumatica, Prooem., p. 16, 10-16 [Schmidt]), and amber
ἀναλαμβάνει TO ὅμοιον σῶμα.

Ὁ Timaeus 79 a 5-E 9. CF. Albinus, Epitome xxi (p. 107
[Louis] =p. 175, 20-27 [Hermann]) and “* Timaeus Locrus ”
101 p—102 a (see the last note supra) and the criticisms of the.
exposition by Aristotle (Parva Naturalia 472 b 6-32) and by
Galen (De Placitis Hippoc., et Plat. viii, 8=pp. 714, 14-720,
16 [Mueller] and In Plat. Timaeum Comment. Frag. xvii-
xix = pp. 22, 27-26, 2 ((Schréder]).

¢ In this paraphrase of Timaeus 80 c 3-8 διακρινόμενα καὶ
συγκρινόμενα (c 4-5) is omitted, an omission which affects
the meaning of διαμειβόμενα in the original and obscures the
connexion of the passage with Timaeus 58 B 6-c 2.

65

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

aA al . A
(1004) τῶν rod’ χαλκοῦ πόρων" ἀραιότερος ἐξέπεσεν

1005

2 ἢ \ , ἢ ἢ " εἰ ty ΑΝ ν νὴ
οὐκ εἰς κενὴν χώραν (οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν) εἰς δὲ" τὸν
a \ , 4 Ν 27 4 Rt ἢ
περιεστῶτα τὴν σικύαν' ἔξωθεν ἀέρα, κἀκεῖνον ἀπ-
, e A A \ e A \ - U
ἔωσεν; ὁ δὲ τὸν πρὸ αὑτοῦ" καὶ τοῦτο πάσχων
> \ \ μὰ ἃ ᾿ τ eo
ἀεὶ καὶ δρῶν" ὁ ἔμπροσθεν ὑποχωρεῖ, τῆς κε-
’ / ~
νουμένης γλιχόμενος χώρας ἣν ὁ πρῶτος ἐξέλιπεν᾽
Ὁ ~
οὕτω δὲ TH σαρκὶ περιπίπτων, ἧς ἡ σικύα᾽ δέ-
t's , δ΄ , 1 oe ἢ
δρακται, καὶ ἀναπιέζων" ἅμα" συνεκθλίβει τὸ ὑγρὸν
εἰς τὴν σικύαν.᾽"
Ἥ \ / ’ \ >? A /
δὲ κατάποσις γίγνεται τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον'᾽
αἱ γὰρ περὶ τὸ στόμα Kal” τὸν στόμαχον κοι-
λότητες ἀέρος ἀεὶ πλήρεις εἰσίν. ὅταν οὖν ἐμ-
~ aA Ly \ ~
πιεσθῇ TO σιτίον ὑπὸ τῆς γλώττης, ἅμα καὶ τῶν
4 > / 5 , e 2 ἣ 4
παρισθμίων ἐνταθέντων, ἐκθλιβόμενος ὁ ἀὴρ πρὸς
~ ~ A
τὸν οὐρανὸν" ἔχεται τοῦ ὑποχωροῦντος καὶ συν-
επωθεῖ τὸ σιτίον.
\
5. Ta δὲ ῥιπτούμενα βάρη τὸν ἀέρα σχίζει μετὰ
πληγῆς ἐμπεσόντα'" καὶ διίστησιν: ὁ δὲ περιρ-
~ > 15
ρέων ὀπίσω τῷ" φύσιν ἔχειν ἀεὶ THY ἐρημουμένην

τοῦ -omitted by J, £.
πόρων ws -K 5 σωρῶν -J', g.
οὐδὲ -ε.

σικήαν -{",

8

δρῶν᾽ -W yttenbach ; ἄγων -MSS.
neh np «ὁ δ᾽ ὄπισθεν emywpet> -Wyttenbach.
σικῆα -
pate: -E ‘mperius (Op. Philol., p. 340); ἀναξέων -J,
x3 ἀναζέων -all other mss.

" ἅμα -omitted by n.

80 σικῆαν -J}, g.

ἊΣ τὸ στόμα καὶ -omitted by J},

12 τὸν οὐρανὸν -Nogarola, Shep aids: a! (5); τὸ ἦκον -a’,

or δ᾽ ὦ ὦ ὦ BS »"

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vu, 1004-1005

the bronze escapes not into empty space (for there
isn't any) but into the air surrounding the cupping-
instrument from without and pushes this air aside,
as this air does that before itself ; and at every step
thus acted upon and acting the air that is in front
gives way, making for the vacated space which the
first had left, and so, falling upon the circumference
of the flesh gripped by the cupping-instrument and
pressing it up, it simultaneously squeezes the liquid
out into the cupping-instrument.*

4. Swallowing occurs in the same way, for the
cavities of the mouth and the oesophagus are always
full of air. So, when the food is pressed in by the
tongue, the fauces too having been stretched taut
at the same time, the air, being squeezed out against
the palate, follows closely upon that which gives
way and helps to push the food on.”

5. Weights that are thrown cleave the air and se-
parate it because of the impact with which they have
fallen upon it; and the air because of its nature
always to seek out and fill up the space left empty

« Asclepiades of Bithynia, who compared the mechanism
of respiration with the action of cupping-instruments, must
have explained the latter also by a kind of περίωσις without
the intervention of ὁλκή ({Plutarch], De Placitis 903 Ἐ-Ὲ =
Dox. Graeci, pp. 412, 31-413, 1; cf. R. A. Fritzsche, Rhein.
Mus., N.F. lvii [1902], p. 384).

» Cf. the view opposed by Galen (De Naturalibus Facul-_
tatibus iii, chap. 8=pp. 176-177 [Kiihn]) that in deglutition
the food is merely pushed down from above without any
ὁλκή.

n; τὸ εἶκον -all other mss. (τὸ omitted by Voss. 16, Escorial
T-11-5).
18. All mss. (pace Hubert); ἐκπεσόντα -Aldine, Basil.
14 γὸ -J. * ἐρημωμένην 1,
67

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

io / \ > A / A 5
(1006) χώραν διώκειν καὶ ἀναπληροῦν συνέπεται τῷ ἀφ-
4 1 \
ιεμένῳ᾽ τὴν κίνησιν συνεπιταχύνων .ἦ
t
e \ ~ - Vd ‘ ? \ ε,
B 6. At δὲ τῶν κεραυνῶν πτώσεις καὶ αὐταὶ ρί-
ΕΝ ὦ 3 “- A \ A 3 A
yeow ἐοίκασιν: ἐκπηδᾷ yap ὑπὸ πληγῆς ἐν TO
νέφει γενομένης τὸ πυρῶδες εἰς τὸν ἀέρα, κἀκεῖνος
ἀντιρραγεὶς ὑποχωρεῖ καὶ πάλιν εἰς ταὐτὸ" συμπί-
” ἢ Ἄ ͵ \ , 4 9 ,
πτων ἄνωθεν ἐξωθεῖ κάτω παρὰ Pvaw* ἀποβιαζό-
μενος τὸν κεραυνόν.
7. To δ᾽ ἤλεκτρον οὐδὲν ἕλκει τῶν παρακει-
/ ef % \ ¢ “a ͵ 3 \
μένων ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἡ σιδηρῖτις λίθος, οὐδὲ προσ-
- ὔ > > ς A ~ / > \ €
πηδᾷ TL τούτοις ἀφ᾽ αὑτοῦ τῶν πλησίον: ἀλλὰ ἡ
\ , \ > 1 hn ΡΥ > a \
μὲν λίθος τινὰς ἀπορροὰς" ἐξίησιν ἐμβριθεῖς καὶ
πνευματώδεις, αἷς ὁ συνεχὴς ἀναστελλόμενος ἀὴρ
ὠθεῖ τὸν πρὸ αὑτοῦ: κἀκεῖνος ἐν κύκλῳ περιιὼν
καὶ ὑπονοστῶν αὖθις ἐπὶ τὴν κενουμένην χώραν
> / ‘ / A / \ 3
Ο ἀποβιάζεται καὶ συνεφέλκεται τὸν σίδηρον. τὸ ὃ

1 ἐφιεμένῳ - ἷ, g, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5.
mf . ’
2 ἐπιταχύνων -E, B, Escorial T-11-5.
8 > \ Κα |
εἰς TavTa -τὦὁ, 2.
παρὰ τὴν φύσιν -J', δ.
8 708 ἤλεκτρον . - - συνεφέλκεται τὸν σίδηρον -omitted by ε-
ὃ Bernardakis ; ἀπορροίας -MSS.
7 ὑπὸ -Χ.

4

|

¢ Cf. Simplicius, Phys., p. 668, 25-32 on Aristotle, Physics
215 a 14-15 and the objections of Aristotle (Physics 207 a
15-20) and of Philoponus (Phys., pp. 639, 12—641, 6). No-
thing is said in the Timaeus of the acceleration to which
Plutarch refers (cf. A. E. Taylor, 4 Commentary on Plato’s
Timaeus, Ὁ. 572 on 80 a 1-2; F. Wehrli, Die Schule des
Aristoteles, Heft v?, p. 63 on Strato, frag. 73).

> Cf. Aristotle’s explanation of the downward motion of
the thunderbolt contrary to its nature ( Meteorology 342 a 12-
16 and 369 a 17-24).

° i.e. τὴν λίθον τὴν “Hpaxreiay of 1004 E supra called ἡ
σιδηρῖτις as here by Plutarch in De [side 376 w and Quaest.

68

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vir, 1005

flows around behind and follows along with the object
discharged, helping to accelerate its motion.

6. The falling of thunderbolts itself also resembles
the hurling of missiles, for the impact that has oc-
curred in the cloud makes the fiery substance leap
out into the air, and the latter gives way when it has
been rent asunder and, falling back together again,
expels the thunderbolt from above, forcing it back
downwards contrary to its nature.?

7. Amber does not attract any of the objects
placed near it as the loadstone ὁ does not either, nor
does any of the things in their neighbourhood spring
to them of itself; but the loadstone emits certain
effluvia which are heavy and like wind, and the con-
tiguous air, forced back by these, pushes the air
that is before itself, and that air, moving around in
a circle and settling again upon the vacated space,
forces the iron back and drags it along with itself.¢
Conviv. 641 c; cf. Plato, Jon 533 Ὁ 3-5 and Pliny, N.H.
xxxvi, 127,

¢ The similarity of the ancillary cause of the iron’s motion
given by Lucretius (vi, 1022-1041) led R. A. Fritzsche to
assume a common source and to identify this as Asclepiades
of Bithynia, who is known to have denied the occurrence of
ὁλκή in nature (Rhein. Mus., N.F. lvii [1902], pp. 369-373 and
pp. 386-389) ; but cf. M. Bollack, Rev. Etudes Latines, xli
(1963 [1964]), pp. 171-173 and pp. 183-184. Plutarch’s.
συνεφέλκεται here and ἐφέλκεται in the next sentence are
unfortunate expressions at least, for, although they refer to
*“‘ traction ’’ by the air which is driven from behind and not
to any “ attraction ’’ by the magnet or amber, they might be
thought to compromise the denial of ὁλκή, the original prin-
ciple of the theory (cf. οὐδὲν ἕλκει at the beginning of this
paragraph), and to represent a contamination with the Epi-
curean notions expressed by ducitur ex elementis (Lucretius,

vi, 1012) and by συνεπισπᾶσθαι τὸν σίδηρον (Epicurus, frag.
293 [Usener, Hpicurea, p. 208, 26-27)}).

69

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

ms U \ “Ἃ /
(1005) ἤλεκτρον ἔχει μέν te’ φλογοειδὲς ἢ πνευματικόν,
3 /; ἃ “- 2 aA b Ἢ κι
ἐκβάλλει δὲ τοῦτο τρίψει" τῆς ἐπιφανείας, τῶν
> , 5 \ \ \
πόρων ἀναστομωθέντων᾽ τὸ δὲ ταὐτὸ μὲν ἐκπεσὸν
aA A3 “- , ? / \ A ,ὔ
ποιεῖ τῷ" τῆς σιδηρίτιδος, ἐφέλκεται δὲ τῶν πλησίον
τὰ κουφότατα καὶ ξηρότατα διὰ λεπτότητα καὶ
3 / > 4 > > 1 2Q> » /

ἀσθένειαν: οὐ yap ἐστιν ἰσχυρὸν οὐδ᾽ ἔχει βάρος
οὐδὲ ῥύμην πλῆθος ἀέρος ἐξῶσαι δυναμένην, ᾧ τῶν
μειζόνων, ὥσπερ ἡ σιδηρῖτις, ἐπικρατήσει. πῶς οὖν
Μ / 3 να φ 3Ἃ 3 ᾿ / x /
οὔτε λίθον οὐτε ξύλον ὁ ἀὴρ ἀλλὰ μόνον τὸν σί-
dnpov* ὠθεῖ καὶ προσστέλλει" πρὸς τὴν" λίθον; αὕ-
τὴ δ' ἐστὶ μὲν ἀπορία κοινὴ πρός τε τοὺς" ὁλκῇ
Τῆς. λίθου καὶ τοὺς" φορᾷ τοῦ σιδήρου τὴν σύμ-
πῆξιν οἰομένους γίγνεσθαι τῶν σωμάτων, εἴη λύσις
D δ᾽ ἂν οὕτως ὑπὸ τοῦ [ἰλάτωνος.᾽ ὁ σίδηρος οὐτ᾽
ἄγαν ἀραιός ἐστιν ὡς ξύλον οὔτ᾽ ἄγαν πυκνὸς ὡς
4 n } 2\\> » / 4 ἢ 11 \
χρυσὸς ἢ λίθος ἀλλ ἔχει πόρους καὶ οἰμους"" καὶ
τραχύτητας διὰ τὰς ἀνωμαλίας τῷ ἀέρι συμμέτρους,
ὥστε μὴ ᾿ ἀπολισθαίνειν ἀλλὰ ἕδραις τισὶν ἐνισχό-
μενον καὶ ἀντερείσεσι' ἡ περιπλοκὴν σύμμετρον ἐχού-

- μέντοι ~A, Escorial T-11-5.
τῇ τρίψει -Α", B, y, BF, "Ὁ, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5,
Bonon. 3 +6 -J, g, Voss. 16.

bn

* τὸν σίδηρον μόνον -J, g.

ἡ 3 προστέλλει -Μ88.

6 Wyttenbach ; τὸν -Mss.

7 τῇ -J, g.

8 τῆς -Bernardalcis:: : τοῦ -MSS.

9 τῇ -ἃ, 6.

τ; ; σωμάτων εἰλυσπᾶν οὕτως ὑπὸ τοῦ ἸΙλάτωνος -X,
ε. Ὡ: σωμάτων. .. νᾶ. 18 (erased)... ὁ σίδηρος -a3 σωμά-
των . . « Vac. 4... ὁ σίδηρος (with ἰλυσπᾶν οὕτως ὑπὸ τοῦ
Πλάτωνος added in . margin) -B; σωμάτων ... vac. 11 to
16... 6 σίδηρος ~-A, E, B; between σωμάτων and ὁ σίδη-

pos: Ἰλυαπᾶν -Voss. 16, καὶ ey -lscorial T-11-5, ἰλυσπᾶν
(with οὕτως ὑπὸ τοῦ Πλάτωνος deleted) -Βοποη. : σωμάτων: ὁ

τὸ

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vir, 1005

Amber contains a substance like flame or wind which
it ejects when its pores have been opened by friction
of its surface; and this substance, when it has
escaped, has the same action as that from the load-
stone has but because of its tenuousness and weak-
ness drags along the lightest and driest of the things
in the neighbourhood, for it is not strong and does
not have weight or impetus capable of expelling an
amount of air with which to master the larger objects
as the loadstone does. How is it then that the air
pushes and presses against the loadstone neither
stone nor wood but only iron? This, to be sure, is a
difficulty that confronts equally those who think that
the cohesion of the bodies comes about by the load-
stone’s attraction and those who think that it comes
about by conveyance of the iron, but Plato might
provide a solution in the following way. Iron is
neither exceedingly loose in texture like wood nor
exceedingly close like gold or stone but has pores
and passages and corrugations which by reason of
their irregularities conform to the air; and the
result is for the air, however in its motion to the
loadstone it may fall upon the iron, not to slip off
but, intercepted by certain lodgements and counter-

4 i.e. by the iron’s being “ carried’ or propelled to the |
magnet as in Plutarch’s own explanation; φορᾷ does not
here refer to any “ impulse ” of the iron itself, for such an
explanation (as e.g. in Alexander, Quaestiones, p. 74, 24-30
[Bruns]) would not be confronted by this difficulty.

pai (without lacuna) ~J, 8. ὧν: εὐλητὸς δ᾽ ἂν οὕτως ὑπὸ
(or μετὰ) τοῦ Πλάτωνος “Hubert ; ἐλύετο δ᾽ ἄν οὕτως ὑπὸ τοῦ
Πλάτωνος -Bernardakis.

11 X, 6, 13 οἴμας -all other mss.

12 Diibner ; μήτε -Mss.

18 ἀντερείσεσι καὶ -J, g.

71

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

\ 3 \ A ἢ / «ἢ
(1006) σαις, ὡς ἂν ἐμπέσῃ πρὸς τὴν λίθον φερόμενος, ἀπο-
βιάζεσθαι καὶ προωθεῖν τὸν σίδηρον. τούτων μὲν
οὖν τοιοῦτός τις" ἂν εἴη λόγος.
ξεν 93 e /

8. Ἣ δὲ τῶν" ἐπὶ γῆς ὑδάτων ῥύσις οὐχ ὁμοίως
εὐσύνοπτον ἔχει τὸν τῆς ἀντιπεριώσεως τρόπον."
ἀλλὰ χρὴ καταμανθάνειν τὰ λιμναῖα τῶν ὑδάτων
ἀτρεμοῦντα καὶ μένοντα τῷ περικεχύσθαι καὶ συν-

ΕΗ αγαγεῖν πανταχόθεν αὑτοῖς" ἀκίνητον ἀέρα, μηδα-
μοῦ κενὴν ποιοῦντα χώραν. τὸ γοῦν ἐπιπολῆς
ὕδωρ ἔν τε ταῖς λίμναις καὶ ἐν τοῖς πελάγεσι δο-
νεῖται καὶ κυμαίνεται τοῦ ἀέρος σάλον λαμβάνον-
τος" ἕπεται γὰρ εὐθὺς μεθισταμένῳ καὶ συναπορρεῖ"
διὰ τὴν ἀνωμαλίαν" ἡ γὰρ κάτω πληγὴ τὴν κοιλό-
τηταὰ ποιεῖ τοῦ κύματος ἡ δ᾽ ἄνω τὸν ὄγκον, ἄχριΐ
οὗ" καταστῇ καὶ “παύσηται, “τῆς περιεχούσης" τὰ
ὑγρὰ χώρας ἱσταμένης.᾽ αἱ ῥύσεις οὖν τῶν" φερομέ-
νων ἀεὶ τὰ ὑποχωροῦντα τοῦ ἀέρος διώκουσαι τοῖς
δ᾽ ἀντιπεριωθουμένοις " ἐλαυνόμεναι τὸ ἐνδελεχὲς

\ 9 / » A \ ’, “-- ¢
καὶ ἀλώφητον ἔχουσι. διὸ Kat φέρονται θᾶττον οὗ

x , 1. ὦ x op a ι i

F ποταμοὶ πληθύοντες“- ὅταν δ᾽ ὀλίγον ἡ καὶ κοῖλον,

>\7 re has δὲ ‘tees 5 , δι. ὁ , 15
(ἀνλ)ίεται" τὸ ὑγρὸν ὑπ᾽ ἀσθενείας, οὐχ ὑπείκοντος

_Diibner (after Wyttenbach supra); τὸν -Μ88.
τις omitted by J}, g, ε.
TOU -£.- 4 τόπον -J, δ.
Escorial T-11-5 ; αὐτοῖς -all other mss.
συναπορεῖ -X, ε: τὰ συναπορρεῖται “J, 8.
Bernardakis ; 3 ἄχρις -MSS. οὖν -Ἡ.
“περιούσης -J}, g, β (superscript over Bhs ek 3 Tepi-
εχούσας -Escorial] wis (a (ons Over σας -Ccorr.

10 ἱστάμενος -J1, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5, Bonon.corr- (os
superscript over a 3 ἱστάμενα 83 ἐνισταμένης (“ impediente’’)
-Wyttenbach, τοῦ -Escorial T-11-5.

12 τοῦ δ᾽ ἀντιπεριπεριωθουμένου Εασες T-11-5.

18. πληθύνοντες -J, g, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5.

on aon ὦ wh ν»

72

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vu, 1005

pressures with meshes that conform to it, to force
the iron back and push it on before itself.* Well
then, of these phenomena there might be some such
explanation.

8. It is not similarly easy to comprehend the way
in which cyclical propulsion is involved in the flowing
of waters upon the earth. It must be observed, how-
ever, that the water of pools is calm and at rest
because it has spread and collected about itself from
all sides motionless air that nowhere leaves an
empty space. At any rate, the water on the surface
in pools and in seas is agitated and undulates when
the air begins to surge, for it straightway follows
the latter as it changes position and flows off along
with it because of the irregularity, the downward
impact ὃ producing the trough of the wave and the
upward impact the swell until it has settled down
and stopped as the space that encompasses the
waters comes to rest. The streams of running
waters, then, always pursuing the air that gives
way and being driven on by that which is pushed
around in turn, flow perpetually and unremittingly.
This is also why rivers run more swiftly when they
are full; but, when the water is low and shallow, it
grows slack from feebleness, as the air does not

α Uf. Lucretius, vi, 1056-1064 with R. A. Fritzsche, Rhein.
Mus., N.F. lvii (1902), p. 370 and p. 372, ἢ. 14; and especi-
ally for the terminology cf. the use of the theory of effluvia,
pores, and corrugations of a surface in Plutarch, Quaest.
Naturales 916 p-F.

δ 4,6, the impact of the air on the water.

14 Wyttenbach ; ἴεται -X, 3 £, β. Β, €é, M$ ἵεται -all
other mss.; ἵσταται -Wyttenbach, Apelt (Philologus, Ixii
[1903], p. 287). 15 ὑπήκοντος -J, €, N.

Te

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

a A 4 3
(1000) τοῦ ἀέρος οὐδὲ πολλὴν ἀντιπερίστασιν λαμβάνοντος.
Ἁ \ A ~ / a
οὕτω δὲ Kal τὰ πηγαῖα τῶν ὑδάτων avayKaiov”
ἐστιν ἀναφέρεσθαι, τοῦ θύραθεν ἀέρος εἰς τὰς κενου-
, 9 3 1θ / 2Φ 4 “ \ λ 4
μένας" ev Baber χώρας" ὑποφερομένου Kai πάλιν θύ-
3 ω 3 / ” \ /
1006 pate τὸ ὕδωρ ἐκπέμποντος. οἴκου δὲ βαθυσκίου
καὶ περιέχοντος ἀέρα νήνεμον᾽ ὕδατι ῥανθὲν" ἔδαφος
πνεῦμα ποιεῖ καὶ ἄνεμον, μεθισταμένου τοῦ ἀέρος
ἐξ ἕδρας παρεμπίπτοντι τῷ ὑγρῷ καὶ πληγὰς
λαμβάνοντος.“ οὕτως ἐξωθεῖσθαί θ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων
\ 3 ’ὔ 3 ὔ Yd 3 δ
καὶ ἀνθυπείκειν ἀλλήλοις πέφυκεν, οὐκ οὔσης κε-
, > eQr ¢ Vg iy , = ἢ
νότητος ἐν ἡ θάτερον ἱδρυθὲνἷ οὐ μεθέξει τῆς θατέ-
ρου μεταβολῆς.
ἢ ‘ \ 1 Ae , a Me ”
9. Kai μὴν τὰ περὶ τῆς" συμφωνίας αὐτὸς εἴς-
ρηκεν ὃν τρόπον ὁμοιζοπαθεῖς αἱ κινήσεις ποιν"οῦσι
τοὺς φθόγγους. ὀξὺς μὲν γὰρ 6 ταχὺς γίγνεται
βαρὺς δὲ ὁ «βραδύς""" - διὸ καὶ πρότερον κινοῦσι' ᾿ τὴν
αἴσθησιν οἱ ὀξεῖς" ὅταν δὲ τούτοις 767"? μαραινομέ-
13 ae) , ε πὰ i , > ,
vois® καὶ ἀπολήγουσιν ot βραδεῖς ἐπιβάλωσιν ἀρχό-
Β μενοι, τὸ κραθὲν αὐτῶν διὰ ὁμοιοπάθειαν ἡδονὴν
τῇ ἀκοῇ παρέσχεν, ἣν συμφωνίαν καλοῦσιν. ὅτι
δὲ τούτων ὄργανον 6 dnp ἐστι ῥάδιον συνιδεῖν ἐκ
τῶν προειρημένων. ἔστι γὰρ ἡ φωνὴ πληγὴ τοῦ

1 τὰ πηγαῖα τῶν ἀναγκαίων -ιἶ", g.
κενουμένας =A wah gis «01.
χώρας ἐν βάθει -
Wyttenbach (ἢ vena -Leonicus, N ogarola) s ἀέρα ἢ
ἄνεμον -MSS. 5 ῥαθὲν -}.
δ λαμβάνοντι -J*, 5.
ee Sophie -all other mss.
8 γὰς -Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5, Bonon.

Ὁ» © 1τὉ

9 <...> -added by Pohlenz ; ὁμοιοῦσι -Μ85. 5 ὁμολογοῦσι οἱ
φθόγγοι -Nogarola. 10 βαρύς -ὦ1,
τ: Keven: πρότερον οὐ κινοῦσι -all other Mss. (but οὐ evased
in α and cancelled in A). 12 ἤδη -omitted by «.

τά

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vu, 1005-1006

yield and does not undergo much cyclical replace-
ment. It must be in this way too that the waters of
fountains run upwards, the air from outside running
down into the vacated underground spaces and
thrusting the water forth again. In a darkened
house where the air enclosed is still sprinkling the
floor with water produces a draught or breeze, as
the air shifts from its position before the moisture
when it intervenes and is subjected to its impacts.
Thus the two are naturally expelled by each other
and yield to each other in turn, for there is no vacuity
in which the one could be situated and so not par-
take of the change in the other.

9. And now as to the subject of consonance, he
has himself stated 5 how the sounds (are made con-
gruous by the motions). For the sound that is swift
turns out to be high, and that which is slow to be
low, which is also why the sense is set in motion
sooner by the high sounds ; and, when these as they
are already fading out and dying away are over-
taken by the slow sounds just beginning,’ the pro-
duct of their blending because of the congruity affords
the hearing pleasure which men call consonance.
That the air is the instrument of this process is easy
to see from what was previously stated.° Sound, in

« Timaeus 80 a 3-8 8. Of the genuine problems involved
in this passage Plutarch appears not to have been aware.
‘They are stated but not persuasively resolved by Cornford
(Plato’s Cosmology, pp. 320-326) and Moutsopoulos (La
Musique... de Platon, pp. 36-42).

> νοι just beginning to affect the percipient by setting the
sense in motion.

¢ Timaeus 67 8 2-6; cf. Plutarch, De Fortuna 98 8, De EF
390 8, and De Defectu Orac. 436 v.

75

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1006) αἰσθανομένου δι᾽ ὦτων ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος" πλήττει yap:
rae ὁ ἀὴρ ὑπὸ τοῦ κινήσαντος, ἂν μὲν 7 ἡ σφο-
δρόν, ὀξέως, ἂν δ᾽ ἀμβλύ, ἌΣ, ὁ 67°
σφόδρα" καὶ συντόνως πληγεὶς" προσμίγνυσι τῇ
ἀκοῇ πρότερος, εἶτα περιιὼν πάλιν" καὶ καταλαμ-
βάνων tov" βραδύτερον συνέπεται καὶ συμπαραπέμ-

8 A ”
mer τὴν αἴσθησιν.

ZHTHMA H’

Πῶς λέγει τὰς ψυχὰς ὁ 0 Τίμαιος εἴς τε γῆν καὶ

Sr as καὶ τἄλλα ὁ ὅσα ὄργανα. χρόνου σπαρῆναι; ;
Ο [Πότερον οὕτως" ἐκίνει τὴν γῆν ὥσπερ, ἥλιον καὶ
σελήνην καὶ τοὺς πέντε πλάνητας, οὕς ὄργανα
χρόνου διὰ τὰς τροπὰς προσηγόρευε,᾽ καὶ ἔδει τὴν
γῆν ἰλλομένην"" περὶ τὸν διὰ πάντων πόλον τεταμέ-
νον" μεμηχανῆσθαι By * συνεχομένην καὶ μένουσαν

3

ἀλλὰ στρεφομένην" καὶ ἀνειλουμένην νοεῖν, ὡς

1 τετὶ, δ: τε superscript over γὰρ -X}.

2 8 ba xX, J, g, fey y, i, De ὁ δὲ -N.

3. σφοδρὸς -Ῥ. 4 σύντονος πληγὴ -J, δ.
ὃ πρότερον -}, g. πάντα -J}, 5.
? πὸ ᾷ", δ, ε:

8 παραπέμπει -Voss. 16, Escoria! T-11-5,

: ὄντως =

δ σελήνην ἢ ἢ -J},

προσηγόρευσε J, 1" g.

ἰλλομένην . .. ἀνειλουμένην -omitted by J}, 5": εἰλλουμένην

(ει and ov superscript over, and ο) -Βοοττγ, ; εἰλουμένην -Voss.

16, Escorial T-11-5.

> 18. πεταγμένον -a, A, β' (y erased -f), y, E, B, e, n, Escorial
11-5.

14 δὲν B?, Bonon., Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5; μὴ μεμηχανῆ-
σθαι -all other Μ588.: [μεμηχανῆσθαι] -Hartman (De Plutar-
cho, p. 585).

15 συστρεφομένην -Χ.

76

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vu-vu, 1006

fact, is the impact made by air through the ears
upon the percipient, for the air, when struck by the
agent that moved it, strikes sharply if that agent is
vehement and more softly if it is dull. The air, then,
that has been struck vehemently and intensely comes
upon the hearing sooner and then, moving around
again and catching up the slower air,* accompanies
it and with it conveys the sensation.

QUESTION VIII

1. WHat does ‘Timaeus mean by saying ὃ that the
souls were sowed in earth and moon and all the rest
of the instruments of time ?

Was he giving the earth motion like that of sun
and moon and the five planets, which because they
reverse their courses © he called instruments of time ;
and ought the earth coiling about the axis extended
through all? be understood to have been devised
not as confined and at rest but as turning and whirl-

α This seems to contradict the statement just above, ὅταν
δὲ τούτοις . . . οἱ βραδεῖς ἐπιβάλωσιν ἀρχόμενοι . . ., and is
certainly not in accord with 7%maeus 80 a 6--8 4.

δ Plato, Timaeus 42 pv 4-5 (see also 41 κε 4-5); οἷ. [Plu-
tarch|, De Fato 573 x.

¢ Cf. Timaeus 39 Ὁ 7-8 (... τῶν ἄστρων ὅσα δι᾽ οὐρανοῦ
πορευόμενα ἔσχεν τροπάς .. .) and 40 B 6-7 (τὰ δὲ τρεπόμενα καὶ
πλάνην τοιαύτην ἴσχοντα . . .) With Proclus, In Platonis Ti-
maeum iii, pp. 127, 31-128, 1 (Diehl).

4 Timaeus 40 8 8—c 2. Plutarch’s μεμηχανῆσθαι represents
Plato’s ἐμηχανήσατο. Instead of διὰ πάντων (i.e. all the
planetary orbits) the mss. of Plato have διὰ παντός, δι᾽ ἅπαν-
tos, Or διὰ τοῦ παντός ; and instead of ἐλλομένην two of them
(W, Y) have εἰλουμένην, while two (A, P) have εἱλλομένην (or
εἰλλ-) τὴν (cf. Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology, Ὁ. 120, n. 13; and
for the textual tradition of Aristotle, De Caelo 293 Ὁ 31-82
cf. P. Moraux, J/ermes, Ixxxii [1954], pp. 176-178).

mi

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1006) ὕστερον ᾿Αρίσταρχος καὶ Σέλευκος ἀπεδείκνυσαν, ὁ
μὲν ὑποτιθέμενος μόνον ὁ δὲ Σέλευκος καὶ ἀποφαι-
νόμενος; Θεόφραστος δὲ καὶ προσιστορεῖ τῷ
Πλάτωνι πρεσβυτέρῳ γενομένῳ μεταμέλειν ὡς οὐ
προσήκουσαν ἀποδόντι τῆ γῇ τὴν μέσην χώραν
τοῦ παντός.

2. Ἢ τούτοις μὲν ἀντίκειται πολλὰ τῶν ὁμολο-
D γουμένως' ἀρεσκόντων τῷ ἀνδρί, μεταγραπτέον δὲ
τὸ “χρόνου ᾽᾿ “χρόνῳ, λαμβάνοντας" ἀντὶ τῆς
γενικῆς" τὴν δοτικήν, καὶ δεκτέον ὄργανα μὴ τοὺς
ἀστέρας ἀλλὰ τὰ σώματα τῶν ζῴων δλέγεσθαι

4 3 ’ ς / \ \ >
καθάπερ ᾿Αριστοτέλης ὡρίσατο τὴν ψυχὴν ἐντε-
᾿ ὁμολογουμένων -J! (final ν remade ἴος -J?), g. |
2 X, J', g, 8, Bonon., Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5¢or-. ; eon

Bavovros ~y, Escorial 'T- “3 δὶ; λαμβάνοντα -a, A, ἰδ, B, e, π

γενητικῆς αὐ τ
« Cf. Plutarch, De Facie 923 a with the references in my
note ad loc. (L.C.L. xii, p. 54, note a).

δ Cf. Heath, Aristarchus of Samos, pp. 305-307 ; 5. Pines,
“ἢ fragment de Séleucus .. ,, Rev, @llistoire des

. Sciences, xvi (1963), pp. 193-209; and N. Swerdlow, /sis,

Ixiv (1973), pp. 242-243 in his review of B. L. van der
Waerden, 7bid., pp. 239-243.

¢ Theophrastus, Phys. Opin., frag. 22 (Dox. Wraeci, Ὁ.
494, 1-3); cf. Plutarch, Numa xi, 3 (67 pb).

4 Like Chalcidius (Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 187, 4-13 [Wro-
bel] =p. 166, 6-12 [Waszink]) Plutarch here recognizes only
two possible interpretations of ἐλλομένην περὶ τὸν . . . πόλον :
one, that the earth is stationary at the centre (with συνεχομέ-
νην καὶ μένουσαν cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 137,
6-7 and 13-20 [Diehl] and Plutarch’s own usage in Quaest.
Conviv. 728 ©: ἰλλομένην τὴν ὅπα καὶ καθειργομένην). and
the other, that the earth revolves like a planet around the
axis common to all the planetary orbits (with στρεφομένην
καὶ ἀνειλουμένην cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 138,
7-8 [Diehl]: εἱλουμένην καὶ στρεφομένην; cf. εἱλουμένων
[Simplicius, Phys., p. 292, 28-29] and ἀνείλησιν [Simplicius,
78

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vin, 1006

ing about in the way set forth later by Aristarchus @
and Seleucus,? by the former only as an hypothesis
but by Seleucus beyond that as a statement of fact ἢ
In fact Theophrastus even adds the observation ¢ that
Plato, when he had grown older, repented of having
assigned to the earth as not befitting her the mid-
most space of the sum of things.4

2. Or is this in opposition to many of the opinions
that the man admittedly held ; and must we change
‘of time ” to read “ in time,’’ adopting the dative
instead of the genitive, and take instruments to
mean not the stars but the bodies of living beings
in the way that Aristotle defined the soul as actuality

De Caelo, p. 499, 15}).. The way in which the second alterna-
tive is limited by the comparison with the hypothesis of
Aristarchus is made clear by what ‘Theophrastus is reported
to have said and doubly clear by the reference in Numa xi,
where .. . τῆς γῆς ws ἐν ἑτέρᾳ χώρᾳ καθεστώσης ... shows it
to be incompatible with the “ more genuinely ’’ Pythagorean
theory of Simplicius which Cornford sought to identify as its
true basis (Plato’s Cosmology, pp. 127-129; Kk. Gaiser,
Platons ungeschriebene Lehre [Stuttgart, 1963], p. 184, n. 155
[pp. 385-387]) but which is itself certainly post-Aristotelian
(cf. W. Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft [Niirnberg,
1962], pp. 216-217). Vlutarch’s two alternatives silently
exclude the possibility that the Timaeus refers to a central
earth with axial rotation (Aristotle, De Caelo 293 b 30-32 and
296 a 26-27) or with any sort of vibratory or oscillatory
motion, discredited modern fantasies recently revived by k.
Gaiser (op. cit., Ὁ. 183, n. 153 [pp. 381-385]) in the form of
“ wobbling motion about the axis... to produce a kind of
nutation ’ and account for precession-—which was unknown
to Plato. On Timaeus 40 B 8—-c 3, Aristotle’s statements in
the De Caelo, and the remark by Theophrastus ef. Cherniss,
-lristotle’s Criticism of Plato, pp. 545-564: 1. Diiring,
Gnomon, xxvii (1955), pp. 156-157 ; F. ΔΤ, Brignoli, Giornale
ltaliano di Filologia, xi-(1958), pp. 246-260; W. Burkert,
Weisheit und Wissenschaft, p. 305, n. 17.

79

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1006) A€yerav’ σώματος φυσικοῦ" ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει
ζωὴν ἔχοντος, ὥστε τοιοῦτον εἶναι τὸν λόγον" αἱ
ψυχαὶ εἰς τὰ προσήκοντα ὀργανικὰ σώματα ἐν
χρόνῳ κατεσπάρησαν ; ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο παρὰ τὴν
δόξαν ἐστίν: οὐ γὰρ ἅπαξ ἀλλὰ πολλάκις ὄργανα
χρόνου τοὺς ἀστέρας εἴρηκεν, ὅπου καὶ τὸν ἥλιον
αὐτὸν εἰς διορισμὸν καὶ φυλακὴν ἀριθμῶν χρόνου"

E γεγονέναι φησὶ μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων πλανήτων.
8. ΓΑριστον οὖν τὴν γῆν ὄργανον ἀκούειν χρόνου,
μὴ κινουμένην ὥσπερ τοὺς ἀστέρας, ἀλλὰ τῷ"
περὶ αὑτὴν μένουσαν ἀεὶ παρέχειν ἐκείνοις φερο-
μένοις ἀνατολὰς καὶ δύσεις, αἷς τὰ πρῶτα μέτρα
τῶν χρόνων, ἡμέραι καὶ νύκτες, ὁρίζονται" διὸ
καὶ φύλακα καὶ δημιουργὸν αὐτὴν ἀτρεκῆ νυκτὸς
καὶ ἡμέρας προσεῖπε": καὶ γὰρ ot τῶν ὡρολογίων
γνώμονες οὐ συμμεθιστάμενοι ταῖς σκιαῖς ἀλλὰ
ἑστῶτες ὄργανα χρόνου καὶ μέτρα γεγόνασι, μι-
᾿μούμενοι τῆς γῆς τὸ ἐπιπροσθοῦν τῷ ἡλίῳ περὶ
1 ἐνδελέχειαν - ἷ, δ᾽ ; ἐντελέχειαν -all other mss. ; «πρώτην»
ἐντελέχειαν -Bernardakis.

2. ψυχικοῦ -J, δ.
3 περὶ -J .

ω
4 χρόνου -J1, 23 χρόνου X13 χρόνω -all other mss.
Tots -ὐ΄, δ.
δ προσῆκε τῷ, 8. t

΄

α
7 Pohlenz; καὶ μέτρα χρόνου -ἃ ; καὶ χρόνου μέτρα -all
other mss.

@ Aristotle, De Anima 412 a 27-28 and 412 b 5-6 are here
conflated. In both the ἐντελέχεια is specified as ἡ πρώτης but

80

PLATONIC QUESTIONS ναι, 1006

of body that is natural, instrumental, and potentially
possessed of life,* so that the meaning is like this :
the souls in time were disseminated in the appro-
priate ὃ instrumental bodies ? This too, however, is
contrary to his thought, for it is not once but fre-
quently that he has called the stars instruments of
time, since he even says ὁ that the sun itself along
with the other planets came into being to distinguish
and preserve the numbers of time.

3. It is best, then, to understand that the earth
is an instrument of time not by being in motion as
the stars are but by remaining always at rest as they
revolve about her and so providing them with risings
and settings, which define days and nights, the
primary measures of times.¢ That is also why he
called her strict guardian and artificer of night and
day,’ for the pins of sun-dials too have come to be
instruments and measures of time not by changing
their position along with the shadows but by standing
still, imitating the earth’s occultation of the sun when

Plutarch need not therefore have written πρώτην ἐντελέχειαν
(cf. Dox. Graeci, p. 387 a 14-15 as against a 1-3). The crucial
word for Plutarch here, ὀργανικοῦ, comes from the second
passage and in order to support the proposed interpretation of
ὄργανα in Timaeus 42 pv 4-5 shouid be taken to mean not
** furnished with instruments ”’ (cf. De Anima 412 a 28-b 4)
but “ instrumental.”

> Cf. Timaeus 41 £ 5.

¢ Timaeus 38 c 5-6.

@ Cf. ** Timaeus Locrus " θῖν (γᾶ δ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ ἱδρυμένα. κὰν
ὧρός τε ὄρφνας καὶ ἁμέρας γίνεται δύσιάς τε καὶ ἀνατολὰς
γεννῶσα - - .): Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, pp. 139,
93-140, 5 (Diehl).

ε Timaeus 40 c 1-2; ef. Plutarch, De Facie 937 © and
938 © with my notes ad loc. (L.C_D. xii, p. 157, note ¢ and p.
165, note c).

81

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1006) αὐτὴν ὑποφερομένῳ, καθάπερ εἶπεν ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς

, \ A ἢ € Ae ,
νύκτα δὲ γαῖα τίθησιν, ὑφισταμένη" φαέεσσι.

ὡς ι 5 , » ι + 7
F τοῦτο μὲν οὖν τοιαύτην ἔχει τὴν ἐξήγησιν.

1001

3 A A = Ν plain. \ A
4. ᾿Εκεῖνο de? μᾶλλον av tis ὑπίδοιτο,, μὴ παρὰ
3 e ἰ κέ ΄
τὸ εἰκὸς ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἀτόπως λέγεται" μετὰ τῆς
, \ ~ 4 >
σελήνης καὶ τῶν “πλανήτων εἰς διορισμὸν χρόνου
’
γεγονέναι. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλως μέγα τοῦ ἡλίου τὸ ἀξί-
\
wpa καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Πλάτωνος ἐν Πολιτείᾳ βασι-
λεὺς ἀνηγόρευται παντὸς τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ κύριος,
-“ “- ~ 3
ὥσπερ τοῦ νοητοῦ τἀγαθόν: ἐκείνου γὰρ᾽ ἔκγονος"
/ a - a
λέγεται, παρέχων τοῖς ὁρατοῖς μετὰ τοῦ φαίνεσθαι
τὸ γίγνεσθαι, καθάπερ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ
γιγνώσκεσθαι τοῖς νοητοῖς ὑπάρχει. τὸν δὴ τοι-
αύτην φύσιν ἔχοντα καὶ δύναμιν τηλικαύτην θεὸν
ὄργανον χρόνου γεγονέναι καὶ μέτρον ἐναργὲς τῆς
/ “ ~
πρὸς ἀλλήλας" βραδυτῆτι Kal τάχει τῶν ὀκτὼ
σφαιρῶν διαφορᾶς οὐ πάνυ δοκεῖ πρεπῶδες οὐδ᾽
Μ »Ψ φ ε , > \ e 5 ,
ἄλλως εὔλογον εἶναι. ῥητέον οὖν τοὺς ὑπὸ τούτων
* ἐφισταμένη -Scaliger; ὑφισταμένοιο φάεσσι -Dicls (Po-
eturum Philos. Fragmenta [1901], p. 126).
2 EKEL δὲ -} (corrected J*) 2
3 ὑπείδοιτο - 1 (before Aided Z; ὑπόδοιτο -Voss. 16 (6
over erasure).

4 λέγεται -N 3 λέγηται -all other Mss.
: δε -J}, g.
᾿ sii -X1; ἔκγονος -as € ND, Escorial T-11-5 ; ἔγγονος
nd other Mss.
7 τῆς -omitted by X, J?, g, a (but added superscript by
X?! and a!).
᾿ 1 ἀλλήλαις -X (a ἘΡΘΗΠΗΡΕ over αἱ cis °

2 Empedocles, frag. B 48 (D.-K.). There is no good reason
to emend ὑφισταμένη (cf. Aeschylus, Persae 87 ; Thucydides,
vii, 66, 2) as Scaliger and Diels did ; but rank who retains

82

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vit, 1006-1007

he moves down around her, as Empedocles said

Night is produced by the earth when she stands in the way
of the daylight.¢

Such, then, is the explanation of this point.

4. One might rather have misgivings about that
other point, whether it is not unlikely and absurd to
assert of the sun that along with the moon and the
planets he came into being to distinguish time.®
Yor the sun is generally rated high in dignity and
especially by Plato who himself in the Republic ¢ has
proclaimed him king and sovereign of all that is per-
ceptible just as the good is of the intelligible, for of
that good he is said to be the offspring, affording to
things visible with their coming to light their coming
to be even as that good is for things intelligible the
source of their being and of being known. Now
certainly for the god with such a nature and so much
power to have come to be as an instrument of time
and evident measure of the relative difference in
speed and slowness of the eight spheres ὦ seems to
be not very proper and to be unreasonable besides.
It must be stated, then, that because of ignorance
it, is mistaken in insisting that it must imply motion of the
earth (Rhein. Mus., c [1957], pp. 122-124).

> i.e. Timaeus 38 ς 5- 6, which was appealed to at he end
of section 2 supra (1006 pb sub finem).

¢ Republic 506 © 3—507 a 4, 508 a 4-6, 508 B 12-c 2, 509
B 2-8, and 509 p 1-4; see also Plutarch, Ve Facie 944 © with
my note ad loc. (L.C.L. xii, p. 213, note g).

4 Timaeus 39 5 2-5, where Plato says φοράς, however, and
not “ὁ spheres ” (cf. Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology, pp. 78-79
and 119; Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato, p. 555).
So the “ circles ” of Republic 617 8 4-7 are called “ spheres Ὁ
by Plutarch in Quaest. Conviv. 745 c and in De An. Proc. in
Timaeo 1029 c.. Cf. also Albinus, Epitome xiv, 7 (p. 87, 1-8
[Louis] =pp. 170, 36-171, 7 [Hermann)]).

83

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

, 3 » 4 he ,
(1007) ταραττομένους δι᾿ ἄγνοιαν οἴεσθαι τὸν ypovov"
,͵ > UA Moar A
μέτρον εἶναι κινήσεως καὶ ἀριθμὸν κατὰ πρότερον
. Ψ 2 3 , > ‘
Kal ὕστερον, ws ᾿Αριστοτέλης εἶπεν, ἢ TO ἐν
ὔ ’ 4 "A a‘ /
Β κινήσει ποσόν, ws Σπεύσιππος, ἢ διάστημα κι-
΄ ” 3 S74 207 et os A a > 4
νήσεως ἄλλο οὐδέν, ὡς ἔνιοι τῶν Στωικῶν ἀπὸ
συμβεβηκότος" ὁριζόμενοι τὴν δ᾽ οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ
τὴν δύναμιν οὐ συνορῶντες, ἣν ὅ ye® Ilivdapos
ἔοικεν οὐ φαύλως ὑπονοῶν εἰπεῖν
" 7 \ , : , ; 8
ἄνακτα, τὸν πάντων ὑπερβάλλοντα χρόνον" pa-
κάρων
Ὁ / > A / / > / \
ὃ τε Πυθαγόρας, ἐρωτηθεὶς τί χρόνος ἐστί, τὴν
τοὐρανοῦ" ψυχὴν εἰπεῖν. οὐ γὰρ πάθος οὐδὲ συμ-
βεβηκὸς ἧς ἔτυχε κινήσεως ὁ χρόνος ἐστίν, αἰτία
δὲ καὶ δύναμις καὶ ἀρχὴ τῆς πάντα συνεχούσης τὰ
γιγνόμενα συμμετρίας καὶ τάξεως, ἣν ἡ τοῦ ὅλου
φύσις ἔμψυχος οὖσα κινεῖται. μᾶλλον δὲ κίνησις
1 τῶν χρόνων -{, 5. :
κατὰ τὸ πρότερον καὶ τὸ ὕστερον ~Escorial T-11-5; κατὰ
᾿ «τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον -Bernardakis.
ἄλλα -J*, g. * δὴ -8-
συμβεβηκότα -J*.
nv ye -J1, B3 ἣν 6 τε -Stephanus.
Heyne; dva-J, £3 ἀνὰ -all other ss.

τῶν eee χρόνων -J, 8.
Turnebus ; τούτου -MSS. ; τοῦ ὅλου -Nogarola.

oor aan ὦ

α Physics 219 Ὁ 1-2 and 220 a 24-25 (ἀριθμὸς κινήσεως κατὰ
τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον), 220 Ὁ 32—221 a 1 and 221 b 7
(μέτρον κινήσεως) : cf. Plotinus, Enn. 1, vii, 9, lines 1-2
and J. F. Callahan, Four Views of Time in Ancient Philo-
sophy (Harvard Univ. Press, 1948), pp. 50-53.

> Speusippus, frag. 53 (Lang). Cf. Strato’s τὸ ἐν ταῖς
πράξεσι ποσόν (Simplicius, Phys., pp. 789, 34-35 and 790, 1-2
=Strato, frag. 76 [Wehrli]).

¢ §.V.F. ii, frag. 5153 cf. ii, frags. 509-510 and i, frag. 93
and Dow. Graeci, p. 461, 15-16 (Posidonius).

84

PLATONIC QUESTIONS, ναὶ, 1007

those who are disturbed by these considerations
think time to be a measure or number of motion
according to antecedent and subsequent, as Aristotle
said,? or what in motion is quantitative, as Speusippus
did,® or extension of motion and nothing else, as did
some of the Stoics,° defining it by an accident and not
comprehending its essence and potency,? of which
no mean surmise seems to have been expressed
by Pindar in the words,

The lord, the lofty, time, who excels all the beatified gods,¢

and by Pythagoras, when asked what time is, in the
reply, the soul of the heavens.f For time is not an
attribute or accident of any chance motion? but
cause and potency and principle of that which holds
together all the things that come to be, of the sym-
metry and order in which the nature of the whole
universe, being animate, is in motion; or rather,

4 Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 20, 10-15 and
p- 95, 7-20 (Diehl) ; V. Goldschmidt, Le systéme stoicien, pp.
41-42.

¢ Pindar, frag. 33 (Bergk, Schroeder, Snell) =24 (Turyn)
= 14 (Bowra).

7. Assigned to the Pythagorean ’Axovopara by A. Delatte
(tudes sur la littérature pythagoricienne [Paris, 1915], p.
278); but cf. Zeller, Phil. Griech. i/1, Ὁ. 524, n. 2 and p. 546,
n. 2. A fanciful interpretation is given by R. B. Onians,
Origins of European Thought . . . (Cambridge, 1954), pp.
250-251; but the definition here ascribed to Pythagoras
might be connected with the theory mentioned by Aristotle
(frag. 201 [Rose]), for which cf. Cherniss, Crit. Presoc. Phil.,
pp. 214-216.

¢ Contrast Aristotle, Physics 251 Ὁ 28 (...6 χρόνος πάθος
τι κινήσεως), 219 b 15-16, and 220 Ὁ 24-28 ; and cf. Proclus,
In Platonis Timaeum iii, Ὁ. 21, 5-6 (Diehl): οὐκ ἄρα ἀκολου-
θητέον τοῖς ev ψιλαῖς ἐπινοίαις αὐτὸν ἱστᾶσιν ἢ συμβεβηκός τι
ποιοῦσιν. ;

8

(1007)
C

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

Or \ , \ ;
οὖσα καὶ τάξις αὐτὴ Kal συμμετρία χρόνος Ka-
λεῖται,

4
πάντα γὰρ δι᾿ ἀψόφου
4 ? \ 4 \ MO Pe ek
βαίνων κελεύθου κατὰ δίκην τὰ θνήτ᾽ ayer.

\ A ¢ ~ 3 ’, A \ 4 3
καὶ γὰρ ἡ ψυχῆς οὐσία κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς ἀρι-
θμὸς ἦν αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν κινῶν. διὸ δὴ καὶ Πλάτων
ἔφη χρόνον ἅμα μετ᾽ οὐρανοῦ γεγονέναι κίνησιν δὲν
καὶ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ" οὐρανοῦ" γενέσεως. χρόνος δ᾽ ἢ

> * 291 ἢ , 6 201 , γῶν ΩΝ
οὐκ ἦν" οὐδὲ γὰρ τάξις" οὐδὲ μέτρον οὐδὲν οὐδὲ
διορισμὸς ἀλλὰ κίνησις ἀόριστος ὥσπερ: ἄμορφος
ὕλη χρόνου καὶ ἀσχημάτιστος: ἐφελκύσασα δὲ

1 Hartman (De Plutarcho, p. 586), implied by the versions
of Amyot and Xylander ; dir -X ; αὕτη -all other mss.

2 δὲ -omitted by J}, g.

3 τοῦ -omitted by β, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5, Bonon.

* avou (ἰ.ε. ἀνθρώπου) -J.
5 δ᾽ -omitted by J}, g. 6 χάξεις -}.

ἃ This practical identification of time with the activity of
the rational world-soul prefigures the doctrine of Plotinus
(e.g. Enn. 111, vii, 12, lines 1-3 and 20-25; ef. HI. Leisegang,

| Die Begriffe der Zeit und Ewigkeit im spdteren Platonismus

[ Miinster i.W., 1913], pp. 9 and 23-24; Thévenaz, L’.4Ame
du Monde, p. 96). It is with a very different emphasis upon
the Platonic contrast of time and eternal being that Plutarch
in De Iv 392 © makes his teacher, Ammonius, say: κινητὸν
γάρ τι καὶ κινουμένῃ συμφανταζόμενον ὕλῃ . . - ὁ χρόνος,
οὗ γε δὴ τὸ μὲν ἔπειτα καὶ τὸ πρότερον . . . αὐτόθεν ἐξομολόγη-
ais ἐστι τοῦ μὴ ὄντος (cf. C. Andresen, Logos und Nomos
{Berlin, 1955], pp. 284-287).

> Euripides, T'roiades 887-888, adapted by Plutarch in De
Tside 381 8 also (ἄγεις -Euripides).

¢ The definition is ascribed to Pythagoras in [Plutarch],
De Placitis 898 c= Dox. Graeci, p. 386 a 13-15 (cf. 386 8 8-11
(‘‘ Pythagoras ... and similarly also Xenocrates ’’| and W.
Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft [Niirnberg, 1962], p. 57,
n. 73); but Plutarch himself, ascribing it to Xenocrates,
rejects it as a misinterpretation of the Timaeus (De An. Proce.

86

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vu, 1007

being motion and order itself and symmetry, it is
called time,?

For all that mortal is,
Going his noiseless path, he guides aright.°

In fact, the ancients even held that the essence of
soul is number itself moving itself.° That is just the
reason too why Plato said that time had come to be
simultaneously with heaven? but there had been
motion even before the generation of the heaven.¢
Time there was not, however, for there was not
order either or any measure or distinction’ but mo-
tion indeterminate, amorphous and unwrought mat-
ter, as it were, of time’; but providence,” when

in Timaeo 1012 p-F = Xenocrates, frag. 68 [Heinze] and 1013
c-pD), which may account for his vague ascription of it to
‘* the ancients ”’ here where he cites it as testimony in support
of an interpretation (ef. Thévenaz, L’ Ame du Monde, p. 96).

4 Timaeus 38 Β 6.

e This refers, of course, to Timaeus 30 a 3-5 and 52 p—
53 a3 cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 8, 1016 p-F, and
1024 c.

* Cf. Macrobius, Sat. 1, viii, 7 (“. . . cum chaos esset,
tempora non fuisse, siquidem tempus est certa dimensio
quae ex caeli conversione colligitur’’); and contrast the
formula of Atticus (Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 37,
12-13 [Diehl]) : Χρόνος μὲν ἦν καὶ πρὸ οὐρανοῦ γενέσεως, τεταγ-
μένος δὲ χρόνος οὐκ ἦν.

σ In view of C. Andresen’s misinterpretation (Logos und
Nomos [Berlin, 1955], p. 285 and n. 28) it must be empha-
sized that χρόνου depends upon ὕλη, which is modified by
ἄμορφος καὶ ἀσχημάτιστος (cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014
F: τὸ τὴν ὕλην ἀεὶ μὲν ἄμορφον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
λέγεσθαι).

h Cf. ἐκ προνοίας (De Facie 926 τ᾿ κατὰ θαυμασιωτάτην
πρόνοιαν (Albinus, Epitome xii, 1 =p. 67, 90 [Louis] =p. 167,
10 [Hermann]); and [Plutarch], De "Placitis 884 F (Dox.
Graeci, p. 321 a 10-11) with Proclus, Jn Platonis Timaeum i,
p. 415, 18-20 (Diehl).

87

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1007) πρόνοια' καὶ καταλαβοῦσα" τὴν μὲν ὕλην σχήμασι
τὴν δὲ κίνησιν περιόδοις τὴν μὲν κόσμον ἅμα τὴν
δὲ χρόνον ἐποίησεν. εἰκόνες" δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἀμῴφω τοῦ

D θεοῦ, τῆς μὲν οὐσίας ὁ κόσμος τῆς δ᾽ ἀιδιότητος
(ὁ " χρόνος ἐν κινήσει καθάπερ ἐ ἐν γενέσει θεὸς ὁ δ
κόσμος. ὅθεν ὁμοῦ γεγονότας φησὶν ὁμοῦ καὶ λυ-
θήσεσθαι πάλιν," ἂν τις αὐτοὺς καταλαμβάνῃ λύσις"
οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τ᾽ {εἶΐναι)" χωρὶς χρόνου τὸ γενητὸν
ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ νοητὸν αἰῶνος," εἰ μέλλει τὸ μὲν"
ἀεὶ μένειν τὸ δὲ μηδέποτε διαλύεσθαι γιγνόμενον.
οὕτως οὖν" ἀναγκαίαν πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἔχων
συμπλοκὴν καὶ συναρμογὴν ὃ χρόνος οὐχ ἁπλῶς
ἐστι" κίνησις ἀλλὰ ὥσπερ εἴρηται κίνησις ἐν τάξει
μέτρον ἐχούσῃ καὶ πέρατα καὶ περιόδους: ὧν ὁ

1H. ( ; ἐπικλύσασα δ᾽ ἐν χρόα (δ᾽ ἐν χρόνω ad ty δ) "δ᾽
ἡ τάξις -Fscorial T-11- δ) -MSS.3 ἐπικλώσασα δὲ Μοῖρα -Em-
perius (Op. Philol., p. 340) ; ἐπικλύσασα δ᾽ ἡ χορεία -Apelt

(Philologus, )xii [1903], p. 287): «ἣν ὁρίσασ᾽ ἡ ψυχή,Σ ἐγ-
κλείσασα δ ἐν χώρᾳ -Pohlenz.
β

5 proper aks -X13; περιβαλοῦσα -Escorial Hi 11-53; κατα-
βαλλοῦσα -D; i -all other mss. pero ghdace
-Pohlenz.

8 Leonicus ; εἰκότως -MSS.
<6> -added by Stephanus.
πάντα -J13 πάντας -&:

«εἶναι -Δααεα by Wyttenbach.
ye τὸν -J, δ. 8 ἄνευ αἰῶνος ~Escorial T-11-5.

® μὲν -B? (added superscript), Bonon., Voss. 16, Escorial
T-11-5 ; omitted by all other mss.

10 οὖν -omitted by g.

11 ἔστι -omitted by a, A, β' (but added superscript), γ,

4
5
8
7

FE, B, €, ἢ.
« Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 119 © (. . . τοῦ λόγου καταλαμβά-

νοντος auTnv....) and 1001 B-c supra with note f there.
> This like {Plutarch}, De Placitis 881 a (Dox. Graeci, p.
299 a 11-12) suggests a misinterpretation of Timaeus 92 c 7

88

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vir, 1007

she took in tow and curbed matter with shapes 4
and motion with revolutions, simultaneously made
of the former a universe and of the latter time.
They are both semblances of god, the universe of his
essence ὃ and time a semblance in motion of his
eternity,° even as in the realm of becoming the uni-
verse is god.¢ Hence he says ὁ that, as they came
into being together, together they will also be dis-
solved again if any dissolution overtake them, for
what is subject to generation cannot (be) apart from
time just as what is intelligible cannot apart from
eternity either if the latter is always to remain fixed
and the former never to be dissolved in its process
of becoming.’ Time, then, since it is thus neces-
sarily implicated and connected with the heaven, is
not simply motion but, as has been said, motion in
an orderly fashion that involves measure and limits

or even the reading ποιητοῦ there instead of νοητοῦ (though
the latter is implied by De Iside 373 B, . . . εἰκόνα τοῦ νοητοῦ
κόσμου αἰσθητὸν ὄντα) possibly supported by the misinterpre-
tation of Timaeus 29 Ἐ 3 (cf. De Sera Numinis Vindicta 550
Ὁ and De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 5 [. . . πρὸς αὐτὸν
ἐξομοίωσιν ...|); but it may also have been inferred that,
since γένεσις is aN εἰκὼν οὐσίας ἐν ὕλῃ (De Iside 372 F), if, as
Plutarch proceeds to assert, the universe is god in the realm
of γένεσις (see note ὦ infra), that of which it is the semblance
must be god in the realm of οὐσία.

¢ Of. Timaeus 37 ὃ 5-7. Plutarch himself in De Defectu
Orac. 422 B-c assigns eternity to the ideas (περὶ αὐτὰ τοῦ αἰ-
ὥνος ὄντος οἷον ἀπορροὴν ἐπὶ τοὺς κόσμους φέρεσθαι τὸν χρόνον) ;
cf. Albinus, Epitome xiv, 6 (p. 85, 5-6 [Louis] =p. 170, 21-23
{Hermann]).

4 Cf. Timaeus 34 a 8-3 1 and B 8-9, 92 ὁ 4-9, and Critias
106 a 3-4 (one of the passages cited by Plutarch himself in
De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1017 c).

¢ Timaeus 38 B 6-7.

7 Cf. Timaeus 27 Ὁ 6—28 a 4 and 38 ὁ 1-3.

89

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1007) ἥλιος ἐπιστάτης ὧν Kal σκοπὸς᾽ ὁρίζειν Kat βρα-
E βεύειν καὶ ἀναδεικνύναι καὶ ἀναφαίνειν μεταβο-

Ἁ \ a a ld ’ al 3 ’
Ads καὶ ὥρας, at πάντα φέρουσι καθ᾽ “Ἡράκλειτον,
2 Ἂ δὲ ἢν ἀλλὰ A , \
οὐ" φαύλων οὐδὲ μικρῶν adda τῶν μεγίστων Kal
κυριωτάτων τῷ ἡγεμόνι καὶ πρώτῳ" θεῷ γίγνεται

συνεργός.

ZHTHMA Θ΄

1. Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς" δυνάμεων ἐν Ἰ]ολιτείᾳ
Πλάτωνος τὴν τοῦ λογιστικοῦ καὶ θυμοειδοῦς
καὶ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ συμφωνίαν ἁρμονίᾳ" μέσης καὶ
ὑπάτης καὶ νήτης εἰκάσαντος ἄριστα διαπορήσειεν
ἄν τις πότερον κατὰ τῆς μέσης τὸ θυμοειδὲς ἢ
τὸ λογιστικὸν ἔταξεν: αὐτὸς" γὰρ ἔν γε τούτοις
οὐ δεδήλωκεν. ἡ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τόπον" τῶν μερῶν

F τάξις εἰς τὴν τῆς μέσης χώραν τίθεται τὸ θυμο-
ewes τὸ δὲ λογιστικὸν εἰς τὴν τῆς ὑπάτης. τὸ
γὰρ ἄνω καὶ πρῶτον ὕπατον οἱ παλαιοὶ προσ-

1 (ἐπιταχθεὶς ἐπέδσκοπος -Reinhardt (Hermes, Ixxvii
[1949], p. 229, n. 1).

2 οὐδὲ -J? (δὲ added superscript), a, A, β᾽ (δὲ erased -β3),
y, E, B, en
3 καὶ πρώτῳ -omitted by ¢€3; καὶ mpwricrw -Escorial
T- δ -ὅ.
ὶ τῆς το τῶν -J1, δ: περὶ -deleted by Hartman
(De 2 Platarho, 586).
5 ernabdlalaes : λογικοῦ -MSS.
ἡ ονίαν -Β. β «λογικὸν -X, €, ἢ.
8 Writenbach (cf. 1001 p supra); οὗτος -MSS.
® κατὰ τὸν τόπον -Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5.

« Cf. Homeric Hymn ii (Demeter), 62, cited by Hubert for
σκοπός used of Helios.

> Heraclitus, frag. B 100 (D.-K. and Walzer) =frag. 34
(Bywater) with G. S. Kirk, Heraclitus: The Cosmic Frag-
ments (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 294-305.

90

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vit-1x, 1007

and revolutions. The sun, being overseer and
sentinel? of these for defining and arbitrating and
revealing and displaying changes and seasons which
according to Heraclitus ὃ bring all things, turns out
to be collaborator with the sovereign and primary
god ὁ not in paltry or trivial matters but in those
that are greatest and most important.

QUESTION IX

1. Azour the faculties of the soul in the Republic,
where ὦ Plato likened excellently well the conson-
ance of the rational and mettlesome and appetitive
to a concord of intermediate and topmost and nether-
most strings,* one might raise the question whether
it is the mettlesome or the rational that he gave the
rank of intermediate, for in this passage he has not
made it clear himself. Now, the local disposition
of the parts does put the mettlesome in the position
of the intermediate and the rational in that of the
topmost string. For what is above and first the
ancients styled topmost,f even as Xenocrates calls

¢ Cf. τὸν ἀνωτάτω θεόν (1000 © [Question II init.] supra).

4 Republic 443 vp 5-7.

¢ The note of lowest pitch in the scale was called “ top-
most’ (scil. string); and its octave, that of highest pitch,
was called “ nethermost”’’: cf. Nicomachus, //armonices
Man. 3 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 241, 19-23 [Jan]) ;
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 51, 12-14 (Hiller); Chalcidius, Platonis
Timaeus, p. 111, 7-11 (Wrobel) =p. 93, 8-11 (Waszink) ; and
Plutarch, De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1021 a infra(... βαρύτερον
ny dca ws ὑπάτη πρὸς νήτην. . . ὀξύτερον ὡς νήτη πρὸς
ὕὉπατΤῊὴν

f "CF. [Aristotle], De Mundo 397 Ὁ 24-26; Aristides
Quintilianus, De Musica i, 6 (p. 8, 8-9 and 27- 28 { Winning-

ton-Ingram)]).
91

(1001)

1008

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

, 1 L= , ’ \ > \
nyopevov’ 7' Kat Eevoxpatns Δία τὸν ἐν μὲν
a S
τοῖς" κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχουσιν ὕπατον κα-
λ im , \ eo ae ae ,ὕ 5 / 6 \
εἶ veatov δὲ Tov* ὑπὸ σελήνην, πρότερον" δὲ

“ \ aA 3 7 A A “
Ὅμηρος τὸν τῶν ἀρχόντων ἄρχοντα θεὸν ὕπατον

“ \ ~
κρειόντων προσεῖπε. Kat’ δικαίως τῷ Kpati-
9 ͵, \ ” 8 , ε PrP e
στῳ ἀποδέδωκε τὴν ἄνω “χώρον ἡ φύσις, ὥσπερ
κυβερνήτην ἐνιδρύσασα TH κεφαλῇ τὸν λογισμὸν
ἔσχατον δὲ καὶ νέατον ἀποικίσασα πόρρω τὸ
ἐπιθυμητικόν. ἡ γὰρ κάτω νεάτη προσαγορεύεται
τάξις, ὡς δηλοῦσιν αἱ τῶν νεκρῶν κλήσεις νερτέρων
καὶ ἐνέρων προσαγορευομένων" ἔνιοι δὲ «καὶ τῶν
ἀνέμων φασὶ τὸν κάτωθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἀφανοῦς πνέοντα

ἐδ ἣ -omitted by J},
᾿ ἐόν μὲν ἐν τοῖς J} ἢ Flin : τὸν μὲν τοῖς HB:
3 καὶ -omitted by X ; κατὰ αὐτὰ καὶ He κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ
καὶ -all other MSS. 4 TO ΕἼ: 5 τὴν σελήνην ἢ, Β.
δ πρότερον OY PTE 1: πρῶτον ἘΠ’ δ ; πρότερος -all
other mss.
7 καὶ -omitted by Jj g. 8. τὴν ἄνω -omitted by 9, g

»

α Xenocrates, frag. 18 (Ifeinze). ‘* Nethermost Zeus ”’ is
the chthonian Zeus or Hades (cf. Aeschylus, Supplices 156-

(158 and 230-231 [with E. Fraenkel on Agamemnon 1386-

1387]; Euripides, frag. 912, 1-3 and 6-8 [Nauck, Trag.
Graec. Frag.”, p. 658] ; Pausanias, ii, 24, 4 with Proclus, /n
Platonis Cratylum, pp. 83, 24-84, 1 [Pasquali]), whose
domain, however, is no longer subterranean but is the whole
sublunar region of the universe (cf. De Facie 942 ν and 948 c
[L.C.L. xii, p. 195, note d and p. 201, note c]; P. Beyancé,
Rev. Etudes Grecques, \xv [1952], pp. 334-335 ; W. Burkert,
Weisheit und Wissenschaft |Niirnberg, 1962], pp. 344-346).
By ‘“‘ topmost Zeus’ Xenocrates may have meant to refer
to the monad which he is said to have given the station of
father reigning ἐν οὐρανῷ, to have styled Zeus and νοῦς, and
to have regarded as πρῶτος θεός (frag. 15 [Heinze] =Dow.
Graeci, p. 304 αὶ 1-7). To establish strict correspondence
between the present passage (frag. 18) and frags. 15 and 5,
however, one must assume that Xenocrates posited a Ζεὺς

92

PLATONIC QUESTIONS rx, 1007-1008

Zeus who is among things invariable and identical
topmost but nethermost him who is beneath the
moon“ and earlier Homer styled the god who is
ruler of rulers topmost of lords.® Nature has also
duly assigned the position above to what is most ex-
cellent by establishing the reason like a pilot in the
head and making the appetitive part dwell last and
nethermost in distant banishment.¢ For the station
underneath is styled nethermost, as is made clear
by the appellations of the dead, who are styled
nether and infernal ; and some people say that of
the winds too it is the one blowing from underneath
out of the unseen pole? that has been named

μέσος also (cf. A. B. Krische, Die theologischen Lehren
der griechischen Denker [Géttingen, 1840], p. 324; H. J.
Kramer, Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik [Amsterdam,
1964], p. 37, ἢ. 58 and p. 82, n. 209; H. Happ, Parusia-
Festgabe fiir Johannes Hirschberger [Frankfurt am Main,
1965], p. 178, n. 101) ; and, had he done so, it is unlikely that
Plutarch would have omitted mention of it in this context.
In Quaest. Conviv. 745 8 the Deltphian muses are said to have
been named Ὑπάτη. Méon, and Neary from the regions of
the universe guarded by each of them and not—as, in fact,
is asserted by Censorinus (frag. 12 =p. 65, 13-15 (Hultsch])—
from the musical notes or strings ; but, even if this passage
too derived from Xenocrates (Ileinze, Xenokrates, p. 76), the
latter may well have treated Zeus only in his two commonly
ee aspects as ὕψιστος and χθόνιος (cf. Pausanias, ii,
2, 8).

δ Tliad viii, 31; Odyssey i, 45 and 81 and xxiv, 473.

¢ From Timaeus 44 τὸ 3-6 and 69 ἢ 6—71 a 3(n.b. 70 κε
6-7), but the figure of reason as a pilot comes from Phaedrus
247 c 7-8; cf. Albinus, Hpitome xxiii (p. 111 [Louis] =p. 176,
9-19 [Hermann]) and Apuleius, De Platone i, 13 (p. 97, 2-12
[Thomas]) and Philo Jud., Leg. Allegor. iii, 115-118 (i, pp.
138, 27-139, 17 [Cohn)}).

4 Cf. [Aristotle], De Mundo 394 Ὁ 31-32 ; Joannes Lydus,
De Mensibus iv, 119 (p. 157, 14-15 [Wuensch]).

09

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

, ἢ , ἃ 3 Si sa ” |
(1008) νότον ὠνομάσθαι. ἣν οὖν τὸ ἔσχατον ἔχει πρὸς
“ 9 / \ \ / \ A 7
TO πρῶτον ἀντίθεσιν καὶ TO νέατον πρὸς TO ὕπα-
τον ταύτην τοῦ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ πρὸς τὸ λογιστικὸν
ἔχοντος, οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνωτάτω μὲν εἶναι καὶ πρῶτον
“ A ‘9 Ff A ik fas ay cD ae 4
ὕπατον δὲ μὴ εἶναι τὸ λογιστικὸν ἀλλὰ ἕτερον.
Β οἱ γὰρ ὡς κυρίαν δύναμιν αὐτῷ τὴν τῆς μέσης
ἀποδιδόντες. ἀγνοοῦσιν ὅτι τὴν κυριωτέραν ἀφαι-
ροῦνται THY? τῆς ὑπάτης, μήτε τῷ θυμῷ μήτε τῇ
ἐπιθυμίᾳ προσήκουσαν: ἑκάτερον γὰρ ἄρχεσθαι
καὶ ἀκολουθεῖν οὐδέτερον δ᾽ ἄρχειν ἢ" ἡγεῖσθαι
τοῦ λογιστικοῦ πέφυκεν. ἔτι δὲ “μᾶλλον τῇ φύσει
φανεῖται τὸ θυμοειδὲς τῷ τόπῳ τὴν μέσην ἔχον
ἐκείνων τάξιν". εἴ ye δὴ τῷ μὲν" λογιστικῷ τὸ
ἄρχειν τῷ δὲ θυμοειδεῖ τὸ ἄρχεσθαι καὶ τὸ ἄρχειν
κατὰ φύσιν ἐστίν, ὑπηκόῳ μὲν ὄντι τοῦ λογισμοῦ
κρατοῦντι δὲ καὶ κολάζοντι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ὅταν
’ ἔχει καὶ -J}, g.
2 μὴ -omitted by J?,
3 λογικὸν -J, δ.
© Atter these words at the end of folio 6 v the remainder
of ἢ from οἱ γὰρ is by a different hand.
τὴν -omitted by J, g (ἀφαιροῦντα τὴν -Bonon.).
ἢ -omitted by J, g.
<> τῷ τόπῳ -Hubert.
τάξιν -omitted by Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5.
μὲν -omitted by J}, 'g
ἄρχεσθαι Kai τὸ ΚΑΛῸΝ by J}, g

--- --- -..-.-..-.Ξ--. -μΞ..

α The derivation of νότος (the “ moist ” wind or rain-w ind)
from véaros, as false as would be that of ‘‘ thunder” from
“under,” is probably reflected in τοῦ νότου πνέοντος ἀπὸ
τῶν κάτω τόπων Of Heracliti Quaestiones Homericae 47 (cf.
Hermias, In Platonis Phaedrum, p. 29, 7-8 {(Couvreur]) and
n “ Auster... qui et Notus, ex humili flans, .. .᾽ of Isidore
(De Natura Rerum xxxvii, 3) and persists in the etymological
verses of Johannes Mauropus (R. Reitzenstein, Geschichte der
griechischen Etymologika | Leipzig, 1897], p. 174, lines 37-38).

04

on nn on

~
ΦΦ

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1x, 1008

thunder-gust.*_ Since, then, the opposition of last
to first and of nethermost to topmost is the relation
in which the appetitive part stands to the rational,
it is not possible for the rational to be furthest above
and first and yet for another than it to be topmost.
For those who assign it the réle of the intermediate
on the ground that this is a sovereign function ὃ fail
to understand that they are eliminating the more
sovereign function of the topmost, which befits
neither mettle nor appetite, for to be ruled and to
follow is natural to either of these but to rule or to
lead the rational is natural to neither.¢ From their
nature it will be still more apparent that the mettle-
some part has the locally intermediate station among
them,? if in fact ruling is natural to the rational but
being ruled and ruling to the mettlesome, which,
while obedient to the reason, dominates and chastises
the appetite whenever it disobeys the reason.? Also,

Cf 1009 A infra: τὴν δὲ πρώτην ἔχει Kal κυριωτάτην
δύναμιν ὡς μέση. ..

¢ Cf. De Virtute Morali 442 a with Plato, Republic 441
rE 4—442 p1; and De Virtute Morali 442 σ (τὸ δὲ παθητικὸν

τοῦ λογιζομένου καὶ φρονοῦντος εἰσακούειν . . . καὶ ὑπείκειν
.. « πέφυκεν) with Aristotle, Lth. Nic. 1102 Ὁ 25-31, with
Eth. Eud, 1219 Ὁ 28-31, and with Iamblichus, Protrepticus,
p. 41, 20-22 (Pistelli).

4 The argument, which hitherto has turned on the meaning
of ὕπατον and νέατον, now is based upon the nature of the
parts of the soul; but its purpose is still to prove that the
mettlesome part is in the locally middle position of the three.
Hubert was mistaken, therefore, in wishing to construe τῷ
τόπῳ 85 an “ instrumental ’’ in comparison with τῇ φύσει and
in emending the text to this end.

« Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam i, pp. 211, 7-212,
20 (Kroll) and Stobaeus, Mel. i, 49, 27 (p. 355, 10-12 [Wachs-
muth]); and for the characterization of the mettlesome part
ef. Plato, Republic 441°e 5-6 and Timaeus 70 a 2-7.

95

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1008) ἀπειθῇ τῷ λογισμῷ. καὶ" καθάπερ, ἐν γράμμασι
τὰ ἡμίφωνα μέσα" τῶν ἀφώνων ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν
C φωνηέντων τῷ πλέον ἐκείνων ἠχεῖν" ἔλαττον δὲ
τούτων, οὕτως ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ θυμο-
ewes οὐκ ἀκράτως παθητικόν ἐστιν ἀλλὰ φαντα-
σίαν καλοῦ πολλάκις ἔχει μεμιγμένην ἀλόγῳ" τῇ"
τῆς τιμωρίας" ὀρέξει." καὶ Πλάτων αὐτὸς εἰκάσας
συμφύτῳ ζεύγει καὶ ἡνιόχῳ τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς εἶδος
ἡνίοχον μέν, ὡς παντὶ δῆλον, ἀπέφηνε τὸ λογιστι-
κὸν τῶν δὲ ἵππων τὸ μὲν περὶ τὰς" ἐπιθυμίας
ἀπειθὲς καὶ ἀνάγωγον παντάπασι περὶ ὦτα λά-
cov,’ κωφόν, μάστιγι μετὰ κέντρων μόγις" ὑπεῖ-
\ \ \ + es \ \ 7! ~
Kov To δὲ θυμοειδὲς εὐήνιον τὰ πολλὰ τῷ λογισμῷ
καὶ σύμμαχον. ὥσπερ οὖν συνωρίδος οὐχ ὁ
« / ᾽ὔ 3 3 ~ A ’ ᾽ὔ 9 Ἁ ~
Ὁ ἡνίοχός ἐστιν ἀρετῇ καὶ δυνάμει μέσος ἀλλὰ τῶν
σ ς / \ ~ e / / \
ἵππων ὁ φαυλότερος μὲν τοῦ ἡνιόχου βελτίων δὲ
τοῦ ὁμοζύγου, οὕτω τῆς ψυχῆς οὐ τῷ" κρατοῦντι
τὴν μέσην" ἀπένειμε τάξιν ἀλλὰ ᾧ πάθους μὲν
καὶ -omitted by J}, g, a
καὶ (instead of vite) -J}, 1 g.
Leonicus ; ἔχειν -Mss.
Xylander, Stephanus ; : ἀλόγως -MSS.
τῇ -omitted ae J+, g,n
μωρίας -A, 8, E, B, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5, Bonon.
ἕξει :
τὰς -omitted by g.
περὶ ᾧ fae -J ; περὶ τὰ ὦτα λάσιον -γ.
10 μόγις -J, g (so Plato, Phaedrus 258 Ἑ 4): μόλις -all
other Mss.
11 καὶ σύμμαχον τῷ λογισμῷ -B ; καὶ λογισμῷ σύμμαχον -N.
12 οὕτω N. :
3 γὴν τῆς μέσης -\, J, g, β.

’
eo ὦ - oan Pe © Ὁ ep

$ Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 738 D-E ; Plato, Philedus 1S B 8-c 6
(n.b. τά τε ἄφθογγα καὶ ἄφωνα ... καὶ τὰ φωνήεντα Kal τὰ

μέσα) With Cratylus 424. ¢ 5-8 and Theaetetus 203 κ 2-7.
06

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1x, 1008

just as among letters the semivowels are inter-
mediate between the mutes and the vowels by having
more sound than the former and less than the latter,*
so in the soul of man the mettlesome part is not
purely affective but frequently has a mental image
of what is fair,» though one commingled with what
is irrational, the yearning for retribution.¢ Plato
too, when he likened the structure of the soul to a
composite of team and charioteer,* represented, as
is clear to everyone, the rational part as charioteer
and in the team of horses represented as shaggy
about the ears, deaf, scarcely yielding to whip and
goads ὁ the contumacy and utter indiscipline of the
appetites but the mettlesome part as mostly tract-
able to the reason and allied with it.f Now, as in the
car and pair it is not the charioteer that is inter-
mediate in virtue and function but that one of the
horses which is worse than the charioteer but better
than its yoke-fellow, so in the soul Plato allotted the
intermediate station not to the dominant part but

> Cf. ὁ θυμὸς ὑπερορᾷ μὲν σώματος εἰς ἀσώματον δὲ ἀγαθὸν
βλέπει τὴν τιμήν (Proclus, Jn Platonis Rem Publicam, i, p.
235, 16-18 [Kroll] with i, p. 211, 25-26 and p. 225, 27-30 and
p. 226, 13-17 [Kroll]).

¢ Of. ὄρεξις τιμωρητική (Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam
i, p. 208, 14-18 [Kroll]) and τὸ ἀντιλυπήσεως ὀρέγεσθαι (ibid.)
with Plutarch, De Virtute Morali 442 B (ὄρεξιν ἀντιλυπήσεως)
and Aristotle, De Anima 403 a 30-31,

ἃ Phaedrus 246 a 6-7.

¢ Phaedrus 253 π 4-5,

t In Phaedrus 247 8 2 the vehicles of the gods are called
εὐήνια and in Republic 441 © 5-6 the mettlesome part of the
soul is characterized as ὑπήκοον καὶ σύμμαχον τοῦ λογιστικοῦ
(see note 6 on 1008 B supra); but in the Phaedrus these terms
are not used of the nobler horse, though he is said to be
εὐπειθὴς τῷ ἡνιόχῳ (Phaedrus 254 a 1) and to be guided
κελεύσματι μόνον καὶ λόγῳ (253 D T-£ 1).

97

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

nv ~ aA 3 9 r
(1008) ἧττον᾽ ἢ τῷ (τρίτῳ μᾶλλον δ᾽ THY πρώτῳ
λόγου δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ τρίτῳ (feroy δ᾽ 7 τῷ
πρώτῳ" μέτεστιν. αὕτη γὰρ ἡ τάξις καὶ τὴν
τῶν συμφωνιῶν ἀναλογίαν φυλάττει, τοῦ μὲν θυμο-
ειἰδοῦς πρὸς τὸ λογιστικὸν' ὡς ὑπάτην τὸ διὰ τεσ-
σάρων πρὸς δὲ τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν ὡς νήτην τὸ διὰ
πέντε τοῦ δὲ λογιστικοῦ πρὸς" τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν
ὡς ὑπάτη" πρὸς νήτην τὸ διὰ πασῶν. ἐὰν δὲ τὸν
λογισμὸν εἰς τὸ μέσον ἕλκωμεν, ἔσται πλέον ὁ
\ Ua ey y , ag » om
E θυμὸς ἀπέχων τῆς ἐπιθυμίας, ὃν" ἔνιοι τῶν φιλο-
σόφων ἐπιθυμίᾳ ταὐτὸν εἶναι διὰ ὁμοιότητα νο-
μίζουσιν.
a) \ \ a / . ’ 9 \ a
2. Ἢ τὸ μὲν τοῖς τόποις ἀπονέμειν" τὰ πρῶτα
καὶ τὰ μέσα καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα γελοῖόν ἐστιν, αὐτὴν
τὴν ὑπάτην ὁρῶντας ἐν μὲν λύρᾳ" τὸν ἀνωτάτω"
καὶ πρῶτον ἐν δ᾽ αὐλοῖς τὸν κάτω καὶ τὸν τελευ-
1 πλέον ἌΡ ΔῊ (Op. Philol., p. 340).
2 <...> -added by W yttenbach.
3 ζ. . .> -added by Wyttenbach.
᾿ ΡΝ -a, A, Bi, E, B; e.
5 δὲ -omitted by J}, gies
4 πρὸς -omitted by aL £3 .τὸ de λογιστικὸν πρὸς -Escoria]
11-5. ὑπάτην -
~*~ ὧν -n, Voss. 16, Bonon.
: νέμειν -X.
ἐν μὲν τῇ λύρᾳ -J, δ.
ἀνώτερον -J', δ᾽ : τερον superscript over wrd -Ν΄.

T-

10

4 Proclus (dn Platonis Rem Publicam i, pp. 212, 26-213.
16 [Kroll]) also makes the mettlesome part intermediate ; ; but
according to him its relation to the rational part is that of the
fifth and to the appetitive that of the fourth, which implies
that the appetitive part is ὑπάτη and the rational part νήτη
(cf. e.g. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1019 Ὁ-Ὲ infra), the argument
for this being that, while it makes the interval between
mettlesome and rational greater than that between mettle-

98

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1x, 1008

to that in which the affective component is less than
in the <third but greater than in the) first and the
component of reason greater than in the third (but
less than in the first). The fact is that this disposi-
tion also preserves the proportion of the conson-
ances, of the mettlesome to the rational as topmost
string the fourth and to the appetitive as nethermost
the fifth and of the rational to the appetitive as top-
most to nethermost the octave *; but if we pull the
reason into the middle, it will remove to a greater
distance from the appetite the mettle, which because
of its similarity to appetite some of the philosophers
believe to be identical with it.?

2. Or © is it ridiculous to allot to local positions
the status of first and intermediate and last, seeing
that the topmost itself, while on the lyre it occupies
the position furthest above and first, on the pipes
occupies the one underneath and last ¢ and that the

some and appetitive, it preserves the greater consonance of
the mettlesome with the rational, the fifth being μᾶλλον
συμφωνία than the fourth. Yet elsewhere, in the divine ἁρμονία
of mind, soul, and body it is σῶμα that is νήτη and νοῦς that
is ὑπάτη to the μέση of soul (/n Platonis Rem Publicam ii,
p. 4, 15-21 [Kroll]).

> Cf. De Virtute Morali 442 B (’ApiororéAns .. . τὸ μὲν
θυμοειδὲς τῷ ἐπιθυμητικῷ προσένειμεν ws ἐπιθυμίαν τινὰ τὸν θυμὸν
ὄντα...). Itis ita πεν that Plutarch had in mind here such
classifications as those of S.V.F. iii, frag. 396, to which
Hubert refers, especially since what he emphasizes as
characteristic of Stoic doctrine is the denial that τὸ παθητικὸν
καὶ ἄλογον is distinct from τὸ λογικόν (De Virtute Morali
441 c-p and 446 r—447 a, De Sollertia Animalium 961 pv,
De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1025 pv).

¢ See note c on 1003 a supra and note c on De Comm. Not.
1075 F infra.

4 Cf. Aelian Platonicus quoted by Porphyry, Jn Ptole-
maei Harmonica, p. 34, 22-28 (Diiring).

99

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

Ως

(1008) ταῖον- én dyowoart ire, δὲ ὴθιφοόδη ἡρίδη dl Ὁ ΤΣ
atov ἐπέχουσαν᾽ ETL ὃὲ τὴν μέσην, ἐν ᾧ τις ἂν
/ ἴω 7 ,ὔ e , ς Ἂ
χωρίῳ τῆς λύρας θέμενος ὡσαύτως ἁρμόσηται,"
/ 3 7 ‘ Ὁ f ,
φθεγγομένην ὀξύτερον μὲν ὑπάτης βαρύτερον δὲ
/ \ \ > θ λ \ ? 3 \ / \
νήτης ; καὶ yap ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ ἐν παντὶ ζῴῳ τὴν
αὐτὴν ἔχει τάξιν, ἐν παντὶ δὲ καὶ πανταχοῦ
κείμενος κατὰ φύσιν ὁρᾶν ὁμοίως πέφυκεν. ὥσπερ
IF οὖν ὁ παιδαγωγὸς οὐ πρόσθεν ἀλλ᾽ ὄπισθεν βαδίζων"
ἄγειν λέγεται, καὶ 6 τῶν Γρώων στρατηγὸς
ek , \5 , ,
ὁτὲ μέν τε μετὰ πρώτοισι φάνεσκεν
” 3.53 , ’
ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἐν πυμάτοισι κελεύων
ς / 6 o> “4 ὡς \ A ͵ ,
ἑκατέρωθι" δ᾽ ἣν πρῶτος καὶ τὴν πρώτην δύναμιν
εἶχεν, οὕτω τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς μόρια δεῖ μὴ τοῖς τόποις
’ὔ’ \ A ἈΠῸ > \ 4 /
καταβιάζεσθαι μηδὲ Tots ὀνόμασιν ἀλλὰ τὴν δύνα-
\ \ > ’ > / \ \ “A 4
1009 μιν Kal τὴν ἀναλογίαν ἐξετάζειν. τὸ yap TH θέσει
~ “Ἐ Α “A ~
πρῶτον ἱδρῦσθαι τὸ λογιστικὸν ἐν TH σώματι τοῦ
x
ἀνθρώπου κατὰ συμβεβηκός ἐστι" THY δὲ πρώτην
,
ἔχει Kal κυριωτάτην δύναμιν ὡς μέση πρὸς ὑπάτην
ὶ \ las
μὲν τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν νήτην δὲ TO θυμοειδές, TH’
χαλᾶν καὶ ἐπιτείνειν καὶ ὅλως συνῳδὰ καὶ σύμ-
aA \ A
φωνα ποιεῖν ἑκατέρου τὴν ὑπερβολὴν ἀφαιρῶν καὶ
πάλιν οὐκ ἐῶν ἀνίεσθαι παντάπασιν οὐδὲ κατα-
δαρθάνειν' τὸ γὰρ μέτριον καὶ τὸ" σύμμετρον
τελευταῖον, ἀποφαίνοντα -N.
ἑνώση ἂν -", g. ;
θοῖτο ὡσαύτως ἁρμόσεται -Escorial T-11-5.
ἀλλ᾽ ἔμπροσθεν βαδίζειν -J*, 6.
ὁτὲ... vac. 5... μετὰ -ϊ; ὁτὲ μετὰ -g (no lacuna
icated); ὁτὲ μὲν μετὰ -Β. }
ἑκατέρωθεν -ε: Escorial T-11-5 ; ἑκατέρωθε -n, Voss. 16.

TO -J; &> Qs A, Ys Ee B, €-
τὸ -omitted by g.

in

oun ΦΩ͂ σι νι ὦ we

100

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1x, 1008-1009

intermediate moreover, wherever it is located on the
lyre, if tuned in the same way, sounds higher than
the topmost string and lower than the nethermost ? 4
For the situation of the eye too is not the same in
every animal; but, as in all and everywhere it is
naturally placed, seeing is similarly natural to it.?
As, then, the children’s tutor is said to lead, though
he walks behind them and not before, and the general
of the Trojans

Now would appear in the foremost ranks of the battle,

Then in the rearmost, urging them forward,°

but in either place was first and had the foremost
function, so the parts of the soul must not be con-
strained by location or by nomenclature but their
function and their proportion must be scrutinized.
In fact it is incidental that in the body of man the
rational part has been situated as first in local posi-
tion ; but the foremost and most sovereign function
belongs to it as intermediate in relation to the ap-
petitive as topmost and to the mettlesome as nether-
most inasmuch as it slackens and tightens and
generally makes them harmonious and concordant
by removing the excess from either and again not
permitting them to relax entirely and to fall asleep,4
for the moderate and the commensurate 6 are

α Of. De Virtute Morali 444 e-r; Aristotle, Physics 224
Ὁ 33-34; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 106, 13-17
(Wrobel) =p. 89, 10-14 (Waszink).

> Cf. De Facie 927 p—928 Β.

¢ Iliad xi, 64-65.

4 Cf. De Virtute Morali 444 c; Plato, Republic 441 = 9—
442 a 2.

e Cf. Plato, Philebus 64 © 6 (μετριότης Kai συμμετρία) and
66 a 6-8 1 (summarized by Plutarch, De FH 391 c-p), where
τὸ μέτριον is prior to τὸ σύμμετρον.

101

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1009) ὁρίζεται μεσότητι. μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦτο" τέλος" ἐστὶ
τῆς τοῦ λόγου δυνάμεως, μεσότητας" ἐν τοῖς
7 - [2] e Ἁ a 4 5
πάθεσι ποιεῖν, as ἱερὰς καλοῦσι Covv)ovatas,
bs “ \ A x” \ \ / \ \
Β ἐχούσας τὴν τῶν ἄκρων πρὸς Tov λόγον καὶ πρὸς
" \ ral , , 6 ’ \ ε
ἄλληλα διὰ τοῦ λόγου σύγκρασιν" οὐ γὰρ ἡ
συνωρὶς μέσον ἔχει τῶν ὑποζυγίων τὸ κρεῖττον,
0" Ἁ iY ts 9 , - id > \ /
οὐδὲ τὴν ἡνιοχείαν ἀκρότητα θετέον ἀλλὰ μεσότητα
τῆς ἐν ὀξύτητι καὶ βραδυτῆτι τῶν ἵππων ἀμετρίας,
“ e μ᾿; / 7 , > ie
ὥσπερ ἡ τοῦ λόγου δύναμις ἀντιλαμβανομένη
κινουμένων ἀλόγως τῶν παθῶν καὶ συναρμότ-
\ εν > \ , 9.ϑ } ͵ \
τουσα περὶ αὑτὴν εἰς TO μέτριον, ἐλλείψεως Kal
ὑπερβολῆς μεσότητα, καθίστησιν.
1 μεσότητα -J', g. ;
2 δὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο -Ὦ, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5, Bonon.;
αὐτό τε (Superscript after τοῦτο) -βὥ.
3 γέλος implied by Amyot’s version, Wyttenbach (αὐτὸ
τοῦτο τέλος) ; ἀτελές (ἀταλές -Voss. 16) -Mss.
4 δυνάμεως, ὡς μεσότητας E,
᾿ς 5. H. C.3 καλοῦσιν οὐσίας -Μ58. ; καλοῦσι καὶ ὁσίας -Em-
perius (Op. Philol., p. 340), and implied by Amyot’s version.
8 συγκρίνειν -8. _ 7 ἡλίου -J*, δ.
8 ἀντιλαμβανομένους -n, Voss. 16, Escorial 'T-11-5.
9 τὸ μέτριον -deleted by Hartman (De Plutarcho, p. 586).

ee ee ee eee eee |

@ Of. Albinus, Epitome xxx, 6 (p. 151, 4-7 [Louis] =p. 184,
27-30 [Hermann]).
> Cf. De Virtute Morali 443 c-p (. . . τοῦ λόγου . . . ὅρον

A \ Ud 3 ’ os. A ‘ \ ᾽ ‘ 3 ,
τινὰ καὶ τάξιν ἐπιτιθέντος αὐτῷ καὶ τὰς ἠθικὰς ἀρετάς, .. . συμ-

102

PLATONIC QUESTIONS 1x, 1009

defined by a mean ?—or rather this is the purpose of
the faculty of reason, to produce in the affections
means,® which are called ὁ sacred unions because
they involve the combination of the extremes with
the ratio and through the ratio with each other.¢
For in the case of the car and pair it is not the
better of the yoked beasts that is intermediate, and
the management of the reins must be reckoned not as
an extreme but as a mean between the immoder-
ate keenness and sluggishness of the horses, just as
the faculty of reason, laying hold of the affections
when they are in irrational motion and ranging
them in concord about herself, reduces them to mo-
deration,¢ a mean between deficiency and excess.’

μετρίας παθῶν Kai μεσότητας, ἐμποιοῦντος) and 444 ¢ (. . . ἐμ-
ποιεῖ τὰς ἠθικὰς ἀρετὰς περὶ TO ἄλογον . . . μεσότητας οὔσας).

¢ [ am unable to identify the subject of καλοῦσι.

4 Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 22, 22-26 (Diehl) :
τοῦτο (scil. τὸ μέσον) γάρ ἐστι δι᾽ οὗ πᾶσα ἀναλογία συνέστηκε,
συνάγον τοὺς ἄκρους κατὰ τὸν λόγον καὶ διαπορθμεῦον τὸν λόγον
ἀπὸ τῆς ἑτέρας δυνάμεως ἐπὶ τὴν λοιπήν . . . δι᾿ αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἡ
ἀναλογία συνδεῖ τοὺς ἄκρους.

¢ Cf. De Virtute Morali 444 B, 445 a (... εἰς τὸ μέτριον...
καθιστᾶσα τῶν παθῶν ἕκαστον), 451 F(... ἐγγενομένης ὑπὸ λόγου
ταῖς παθητικαῖς δυνάμεσι καὶ κινήσεσιν ἐπιεικείας καὶ μετριότητος).

7 Cf. [Plato], Dejinitions 415 a 4 bcbecine hese
ὑπερβολῆς Kai ἐλλείψεως) : Aristotle, De Part. Animal. 652
b 17-19 and Politics 1295 b 4; Plutarch, Quomodo Quis
Suos in Virtute Sentiat Profectus 84 a (. .. εἰς τὸ μέσον
καθίστασθαι Kai μέτριον).

108

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1009) ZHTHMA I’
1, Διὰ τί Πλάτων εἶπε τὸν λόγον ἐξ ὀνομάτων
\ € ’ A
καὶ ῥημάτων κεράννυσθαι; δοκεῖ yap πάντα
\ A / A / ~ / /
πλὴν δυεῖν τούτων τὰ μέρη τοῦ λόγου [᾿ἰλάτωνα
μὲν μεθεῖναι “Ὅμηρον δὲ καὶ" νεανιευσάμενον εἰς
ἕνα στίχον ἐμβαλεῖν ἅπαντα τοῦτον

Ԥ

΄

> \ mex 3 , A \ / + 3 ἰοὺ

αὐτὸς ἰὼν" κλισίηνδε, τὸ σὸν γέρας: ὀφρ᾽ εὖ
εἰδῇς."ἡ

καὶ γὰρ ἀντωνυμία καὶ μετοχὴ καὶ ὄνομα καὶ

ῥῆμα καὶ πρόθεσις καὶ ἄρθρον καὶ σύνδεσμος καὶ

ἐπίρρημα ἔνεστι" τὸ γὰρ “ de’? μόριον νῦν ἀντὶ

τῆς “ εἰς ᾿᾿ προθέσεως τέτακται" τὸ yap “ κλι-

, }} ma Ff > e Ὁ) i242 "a }) 45
ainvoe ’’ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν οἷον τὸ “᾿᾿Αθήναζε.᾽᾽ τί
δὴ ῥητέον ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ι]λάτωνος ;

Ἢ" ὅτι “ πρῶτον᾽ λόγον ᾿᾿ οἱ παλαιοὶ τὴν τότε

1 πάντα -omitted by g. .

2-H. Cy (μεθεῖναι -R. G. Bury, Proc. Cambridge Philol.
Soc. for 1950-1951, N.S. 1, p. 31)3 λόγου μηθὲν Ὅμηρον δὲ
καὶ -J, £3 λόγου μερῶν μηθὲν ἅμα καὶ -X, B, e, n, Voss. 16,
.Bonon. ; λόγου μερῶν μηθὲν ἅμα ee VR. Pa εἰν καὶ -E;
λόγου ... vac. 32 -a (erasure), 27 -A, 28 -y, 34 -B... καὶ:
λόγου παραλιπόντα μηθὲν καὶ -Escorial T-11-5. :

3 αὐτὸς δὲ ἰὼν -J. 4 εἰδὼς -X.

5 76 -J', ὦ 6 ἢ -mss.; ἢ -Diibner.

7 πρῶτον -omitted by J1, 8; πρῶτον ὅτι -B", τι, Voss. 16,
Bonon., Escorial T-11-5.

α This question is translated and discussed by J. J. Hart-
man in De Avondzon des Heidendoms (Leiden, 1910), ii,
pp. 22-30 and translated in part by A. von MoGrl in Die
Grosse Weltordnung (Berlin/Wien/Leipzig, 1948), ii, pp.
85-89 ; it is commented on in detail by O. Géldi, Plutarchs
sprachliche Interessen (Diss. Ziirich, 1922), pp. 2-10.

δ Sophist 262 c 2-7; ef. Cratylus 425 a 1-5 and 431 B 5-c
1, Theaetetus 206 ἢ 1-5, and [Plato], Hpistle vii, 342 n 6-7 and
$43 5 4-5; O. Apelt, Platonis Sophista (Lipsiae, 1897),

104

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1009

QUESTION X «

1. Wuar was Plato’s reason for saying δ that speech
is a blend of nouns and verbs? For it seems that
except for these two Plato dismissed all the parts
of speech whereas Homer in his exuberance went so
far as to pack all together into a single line, the
following :

Tentward going myself take the guerdon that well you
may know it.°

In this there are in fact a pronoun and participle
and noun and verb and preposition and article and
conjunction and adverb,? for the suffix “ ward ”’ has
here been put in place of the preposition “ to,” the
expression “ tentward ”’ being of the same kind as
the expression “ Athensward.’’ ¢ What, then, is to
be said on behalf of Plato ?

Or’ is it that the ancients styled “ primary

p. 189 and F. M. Cornford, Plato’s Theory of Knowledge
(London, 1935), pp. 307-308.

¢ Iliad i, 185.

¢ For these eight parts of speech cf. Dionysius 'Thrax, Ars
Girammatica ὃ 11 (p. 23 1-2 [Uhlig]). As the Homeric line
containing all of them the grammarians cite /liad xxii, 59
(Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, p. 58,
13-19 and p. 357, 29-36 [Hilgard] ; Eustathius, Commentarc:
ad Homeri Iliadem 1256, 60-61); and there the noun is
δύστηνον, for the adjective (‘noun adjective” in older
grammars {cf. O.E.D. s.v. “ noun ” 3]) was considered to be
a kind of noun, ὄνομα ἐπίθετον (Dionysius Thrax, op. cit.,
§ 12 [p. 33, 1 and pp. 34, 3-35, 2] with Scholia. . ., p. 233,
7-33 and p. 553, 11-17; ef. H. Steinthal, Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft bei den Criechen und Rémern’*, ii [Ber-
lin, 1891], pp. 251-256).

e Cf. Etym. Magnum 761, 30-32 and 809, 8-9 (Gaisford)
and further for μόριον as “ prefix” or “ suffix”? 141, 47-52.

f See 1003 a and 1008 © supra and note 6 on De Comm.
Not. 1075 ¥ infra.

105

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

/ us > ral J
(1009) καλουμένην πρότασιν' viv δ᾽ ἀξίωμα mpoonyo-
ρευον, ὃ πρῶτον λέγοντες ἀληθεύουσιν ἢ ψεύδον-
“- 3 > ἢ
ται; τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐξ ὀνόματος καὶ ῥήματος συνέ-
ἷΐ᾿ \ Ξ ¢ \ \ \
στῆηκεν, ὧν TO μὲν πτῶσιν οἱ διαλεκτικοὶ TO δὲ
D κατηγόρημα καλοῦσιν. ἀκούσαντες γὰρ ὅτι Σω-
7 aA \ 7 Ὁ / /
κράτης φιλοσοφεῖ καὶ πάλιν ὅτι Σωκράτης πέτε-
2 \ \ 3 A ’ 5 A \ a
Tat, Tov μὲν ἀληθῆ λόγον εἶναι τὸν δὲ ψευδῆ
"4 > A ¥ x / \ \
φήσομεν, οὐδενὸς ἄλλου προσδεηθέντες. καὶ yap
εἰκὸς ἀνθρώπους ἐν χρείᾳ λόγου τὸ πρῶτον" καὶ
φωνῆς ἐνάρθρου γενέσθαι, τάς τε πράξεις καὶ
τοὺς πράττοντας αὐτὰς καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ τοὺς
͵ 3 ’ A μ᾿ > ,
πάσχοντας ἀλλήλοις διασαφεῖν καὶ ἀποσημαΐίνειν
~ e
βουλομένους. ἐπεὶ Towvy TH μὲν ῥήματι τὰ
1 πρόφασιν -J}, δ. 5 πέτεται -Pohlenz : τρέπεται -MSS.
τὸ πρῶτον ἐν χρείᾳ λόγου -J', δ ; τὸ πρῶτον -omitted
by al.

¢ Plato, Sophist 262 c 6-7 (τῶν λόγων 6 πρῶτός τε Kal
σμικρότατος) and 9-10 (λόγον . . . ἐλάχιστόν τε καὶ πρῶτον) : :
ef. hate hie De Interpretatione, p. 67, 20-30 and pp. 78,
| 29-79, 9. |
> Cf. [Apuleius], Περὲ ἑρμηνείας i (pp. 176, 15-177, 2 |
[Thomas]); Galen, Institutio Logica i, 5 (with J. Mau’s note
ad loc., Galen, Einfiihrung in die Logik [Berlin, 1960], pp.
3-4) ; and Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., pp. 193,
18-194, 4 (Friedlein). For πρότασις used in the general sense
of “ proposition” cf. Albinus, Epitome vi, 1 and 8 (p. 29,
1-4 and 19-20 [Louis] =p. 158, 4-7 and 21-22 [Hermann]) and
Aristotle himself (Anal. Prior. 24 a 16-17 with Alexander,
Anal. Prior., Ὁ. 44, 16-23) ; and for ἀξίωμα as the Stoic term
for this cf. besides the passage of Proclus just cited Ammo-
nius, De Interpretatione, p. 2, 26 and Mates, Stoic Logic,
pp. 27-33 and p. 132, 5.υ. ἀξίωμα.
¢ Plato, Sophist 262 © 8-9 and 263 a 11-B 3; ef. [Apu-
leius], Tlepi ἑρμηνείας iv (p. 178, 1-7 [Thomas]) and Ammo-
nius, De Interpretatione, p. 18, 2-22 and pp. 26, 31-27, 4, It

106

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1009

speech ᾿᾿ 4 what then was called a pronouncement
and now is called a proposition,® that in the enuncia-
tion of which a truth or falsehood is first expressed ? ¢
And this consists of a noun and a verb, the former
of which the dialecticians call subject and the latter
predicate. For upon hearing “ Socrates philoso-
phizes ’’ and again “ Socrates flies ’’ we should say
without requiring anything else besides that the
former is true speech and the latter false.e More-
over, it is likely that men first felt need of speech
and articulate sound / in desiring to designate and
make quite clear to one another actions and their
agents and patients and what they undergo. Since,
then, with the verb we do make adequately clear

was express Stoic doctrine that every proposition is either
true or false (cf. Mates, Stoic Logic, pp. 28-29).

4 Cf. [Apuleius], Περὶ ἑρμηνείας iv (p. 178, 12-15
{Thomas]); Martianus Capella, iv, 393; and Mates, Stoic
Logic, pp. 16-17 with notes 34-41 and p. 25 with notes 79-81.
Notice the difference between Diogenes Laertius, vii, 58 and
Plutarch’s statement (Mates, p. 16, ἢ. 34); and with πτῶσις
as used by Plutarch here cf. besides Sextus, Adv. Math. xi,
29 (Mates, p. 17, n. 40) Clement of Alexandria, Stromata
vill, ix, 26, 4-5, cited by Pearson (Fragments, p. 75) in con-
nexion with Stobaeus, Ecl. i, 12, 3 (p. 137, 3-6 [Wachsmuth])
=8.V.F. i, p. 19, 24-26. of διαλεκτικοί in the present passage
as in [011 a and 1011 pb infra are the Stoics (cf. Aulus
Gellius, xvi, viii, 1 and 8; Sextus, Pyrrh. Hyp. ii, 146 and
247 and Adv. Math. viii, 93; Cicero, Acad. Prior. ii, 97;
and see note d on De Stoic. Repug. 1045 r infra).

¢ Plato, Sophist 263 a 8- 3.

f i.e. λόγος in the sense of speech. Cf. De Sollertia
Animalium 973 a (προφορικοῦ λόγου Kai φωνῆς ἐνάρθρου) with
S.V.F. ii, p. 43, 18-20 (τῷ προφορικῷ λόγῳ -- ἐνάρθρους φωνάς
[but in S.V.F. iii, p. 215, 35-36 ἡ σημαίνουσα ἔναρθρος
φωνή, With which cf. S.V.F. ii, frag. 143]); and De An.
Proc. in Timaeo 1026 a (λόγος δὲ λέξις ἐν φωνῇ σημαντικῇ
διανοίας). ;

107

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

/ τ οὐ / Pn. Mee i . \ 7,
(1009) πράγματα καὶ τὰ πάθη τῷ δ᾽ ὀνόματι τοὺς πράτ-
> / > / ~

TOVTAS αὐτὰ καὶ πάσχοντας ἀποχρώντως δηλοῦμεν,
ὡς" αὐτὸς εἴρηκε, ταῦτα σημαίνειν ἔδοξε". τὰ δ᾽
ἄλλα φαίη τις ἂν οὐ σημαίνειν, οἷον οἱ στεναγμοὶ
E καὶ oAoAvypot τῶν ὑποκριτῶν᾽ καὶ νὴ Δία πολ-
λάκις' ἐπιμειδίασις" καὶ" ἀποσιώπησις ἐμφαντι-
κώτερον ποιεῖ τὸν λόγον, οὐ μὴν ἀναγκαίαν" ἔχει"
πρὸς τὸ σημαίνειν ὡς τὸ ῥῆμα καὶ τοὔνομα
δύναμιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίθετόν τινα ποικίλλουσαν τὸν λόγον"
ὥσπερ τὰ στοιχεῖα ποικίλλουσιν οἱ τὰ πνεύματα
καὶ τὰς δασύτητας αὐτῶν ἐκτάσεις τε καὶ
συστολὰς ἐνίων αὐτὰ καθ᾽ αὑτὰ" στοιχεῖα τιθέμε-
, ~ » \ ὙΠ ΕΥΙ \
vot, πάθη μᾶλλον ὄντα καὶ συμβεβηκότα" καὶ
\ 12 , e Ως. 7 ¢ 113
διαφορὰς" στοιχείων, ws ἐδήλωσαν ot παλαιοὶ

\ A ς ’ , 3 , 114
διὰ τῶν ἑκκαίδεκα φράζοντες ἀποχρώντως Kal

γράφοντες.

” / \ 7 ~ 4
ἔπειτα σκόπει μὴ παρακούωμεν Tod [ἰλάτω-
F vos, ἐκ τούτων κεράννυσθαι τὸν λόγον οὐ διὰ

1 +4 -omitted by J}, g.
* Καὶ τε. 3 ἔγδοξος -J}, g.
* δία πολλὰ πολλάκις -Ν. > ἐπι δα Ξ} Ὁ,
‘ καὶ -X, a, ε: omitted by all other Mss.
7 ἀνάγκην -J, 8: 8 ἔχειν -J.
ἐκστάσεις -J}, g.
10 καθ᾽ αὑτὰ (ἑαυτὰ -X) τὰ ἐπ a, A, y, E, B,
11 συμβεβηκότως -J. 12 διαφθορὰς ig
18 πολλοὶ -. 14 καὶ -omitted by g.

== a i .- 5 Ὸο΄“ΠσΠρΠρΠς5΄“ΠΠΠὖΠὖΠὖὅὖὅΠἷΠ΄Πὖ ΄΄΄.......-ο-οθὖσ5ὖθϑοϑοϑ ῸἝὖ΄΄5ἕ͵'. :-Ὸτ τς... “΄“ΠῤΡᾷῸ΄΄΄Γ΄΄Γ΄͵-.- ὦἝὦ͵ ...... ὖὃΘῸΞ-Ὁ5.-ΠἐΠἐὀυὈΠῃ᾿...

: « Sophist 262 a 3-7, B 6, and B 10-c 1; but Plato here
speaks only of πράξεις and πράττοντες as signified by verbs
and nouns. For Plutarch’s substitution of πράγματα for
πράξεις cf. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam,
p. 215, 28-30 (Hilgard); Apollonius Dyscolus, De Con-
structione i, 130 and iii, 58 (p. 108, 11-14 and pp. 323, 9-324,

9 [Uhlig]).
108

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1009

acts and what is undergone and with the noun the
agents and patients, as Plato has said himself, it
seemed that these signify, whereas one might say
that the rest like the groans and shouts of actors do
not signify ; and, by heaven, suddenly falling silent
with a smile often makes speech more expressive
and yet has not the force requisite for signifying as
do the verb and the noun but a certain supplementary
force embellishing speech in the way that the letters
are embellished by those who make independent
ones of their breathings and aspirates and in some
cases of their long and short quantities,? although
these are rather modifications and incidental char-
acteristics and variations of letters,° as the ancients
showed by adequately expressing themselves in
actually writing with sixteen letters.¢

2. In the second place, take care lest we fail to
heed what Plato has said, that speech is a blend of

> τὰ πνεύματα are the two “ breathings,” δασὺ καὶ ψιλόν
(cf. Dionysius Thrax, Ars Grammatica, Suppl. i, p. 107, 4
| Uhlig] and for the argument that such marks are letters cf.
Scholia in Dionysi Thracis Artem Grammaticam, pp. 187,
26-188, 21 and p. 496, 11-13 [Hilgard]) ; but τὰς δασύτητας
refers to the aspirates 9, ¢, x (ef. Dionysius Thrax, -4rs
Grammatica ὃ 6, p. 12, 5 [Uhlig]; Sextus, ddv. Math. i,
103; Priscian, /nst. Grammatica i, 24-25=i, p. 19, 3-8
[Ifertz]) and ἐκτάσεις τε καὶ συστολὰς ἐνίων to the distinction
of η from ¢ and of w from ο (ef. Sextus, ddv. Math. i, 115).

¢ Cf. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam,
p. 496, 19-24 (Hilgard).

4 Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 738 r; Demetrius of
Vhaleron, frag. 196 (Wehrli); Varro, De Antiquitate Lit-
terarum, frag. 2 (Funaioli, Grammaticae Romanae I’rag-
mentai, Ὁ. 184; ef. pp. 2 and 120 for L. Cincius, frag. 1 and
Cn. Gellius, frag. 1); Pliny, V.H. vii, 192; Tacitus, Anz.
xi, 14; Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam,
pp. 34, 27-35, 13 and pp. 184, 7-12 and 185, 3-7 (Hilgard).

109

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1009) τούτων εἰρηκότος, εἶθ᾽ ὥσπερ ὁ' τὸν λέγονταἶ τὸ
φάρμακον ἐκ κηροῦ μεμῖχθαι καὶ χαλβάνης συκο-
φαντῶν, ἐπεὶ τὸ πῦρ παρέλιπε καὶ τὸ ἀγγεῖον ὧν
χωρὶς οὐκ ἐνῆν μεμῖχθαι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμοίως ἐγκα-
λῶμεν" ὅτι _guvdeopous καὶ προθέσεις καὶ τὰ
τοιαῦτα παρῆκεν" οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τούτων ὁ λόγος ἀλλ᾽,
εἴπερ ἄρα, διὰ τούτων καὶ οὐκ ἄνευ τούτων κεράν-

{{

,
1010 νυσθαι πέφυκεν. οὐ γάρ, ὥσπερ ὁ τὸ “᾿ τύπτει ᾽᾿"

, Ἂ ΨΥ ae , 195 \ , ‘
φθεγξάμενος ἢ τὸ “τύπτεται ᾿" καὶ πάλιν τὸ

, Ἂ \ 6 / j
᾿ Σωκράτης ᾿ ἢ τὸ “ Ilv@ayopas” ἁμωσγέπως
΄ \ ~
νοῆσαί τι Kat διανοηθῆναι παρέσχηκεν, οὕτω
~ (( PES TINTS NA Fe Pusey POI CIEE fy) θ᾽ δὴ ἐΝ
τοῦ “μέν ἢ “yap” ἢ “περί Kal? αὐτὸ
/ A
ἐκφωνηθέντος" ἔστιν ἔννοιάν τινα λαβεῖν" ἢ mpdy-
> νὴ - \
ματος ἢ σώματος" ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὴ περὶ ἐκεῖνα Kal
> , 4 / ~ ld
μετ᾽ ἐκείνων ἐκφέρηται, ψόφοις κενοῖς καὶ ἤχοις
a >
ἔοικεν: ὅτι ταῦτα μὲν οὔτε καθ᾽ αὑτὰ σημαίνειν
5 4 3 na
οὔτε pet ἀλλήλων οὐδὲν πέφυκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως ἂν
> \
συμπλέκωμεν ἢ μιγνύωμεν εἰς ταὐτὸ συνδέσμους
5 A
καὶ ἄρθρα Kat προθέσεις, ἕν τι" πειρώμενοι κοινὸν
3 " “A a 171 ’ ἀλλ wv ὃ λέ
ἐξ αὐτῶν ποιεῖν," τερετίζειν ἐξ ον 7 διαλέγε-
1 ὁ -omitted by J},
3 λέγον Ἣν and τα ΠΑΝ τς -α'.
" ἐγκαλοῦμεν -J1, g.
4 τύπτει -MSS. 3 τύπτειν -Basiliensis.
5 χύπτεσθαι -Aldine, Basiliensis.
᾿ παρέσχεν -J,
? καθ᾽ αὑτὸ -omitted by K, B.
8 φωνήεντός -J, g.
® λαβεῖν τινα -X, ε.
10. ἔν ιν Ξἢ.

11 κοινὸν ποιεῖν ἐξ αὐτῶν -X.

----.-.-.οο-.-.-.ς.-

α The phrase, σῶμα ἢ πρᾶγμα σημαῖνον. occurs in the
definition of ὄνομα given by Dionysius Thrax, Ars Gram-

110

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1009-1010

these, not that it is blended by means of them, and
lest then like one who, when the medicine is said
to be a mixture of wax and galbanum, carps at the
omission of the fire and the receptacle, without
which it could not have been mixed, we too similarly
object that Plato disregarded conjunctions and pre-
positions and the like, for it is not of these that
speech is naturally blended but, if at all, by means
of them and not without them. For it is not the case
that as one by uttering “strikes ”’ or “ is struck ”’
and again ‘“ Socrates’ or “ Pythagoras ’’ has pro-
vided something to conceive and have in mind some-
how so, when “ indeed ”’ or “ for ᾿᾿ or “ about’ has
been pronounced by itself, it is possible to get some
conception of an act or an object*; but, unless
these are expressions about those other words and
in association with them, they resemble senseless
sounds and noises. The reason is that they naturally
signify nothing either by themselves or in association
with one another ; but, however we may combine
or mix together conjunctions and articles and pre-
positions in trying to make of them a single thing
in common, it will seem that we are babbling gib-

matica § 12 (p. 24, 3-4 [Uhlig]). Since Plutarch has just
given both verbs and nouns as counter-examples, however,
πράγματος here is probably meant in the sense of τὰ πράγματα
in 1009 ἢ supra (page 108, note a); cf. also Dionysius Hal.,
De Comp. Verb. xii, 69-70 (p. 46, 21 f. [Usener-Rader-
macher]), ᾧ σημαίνει τι σῶμα ἢ πρᾶγμα, where the preceding
οὔτε ὄνομα οὔτε ῥῆμα (ibid., p. 46, 18) indicates that πρᾶγμα
means “‘ act’’ and not “ thing.” The use of σῶμα for “ ob-
ject’ generally reflects the Stoic doctrine that all agents and
patients—and so all entities—are σώματα (see notes f and g
on De Comm. Not. 1073 © infra and cf. Apollonius Dyscolus,
De Constructione i, 16 =p. 18, 5-8 [Uhlig}),

111

(010)

=

>
εἰώθαμεν ἐπαινεῖν ἢ ψέγειν οὕτω πως λέγοντες

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

ofan" δόξομεν' ῥήματος δ᾽ ὀνόματι" συμπλεκομέ-
Oba τὸ γενόμενον εὐθὺς διάλεκτός" ἐστι καὶ λόγος.
ὅθεν εἰκότως ἔνιοι μόνα ταῦτα μέρη τοῦ λόγου τί-
θενται: καὶ “Ὅμηρος ἴσως τοῦτο βούλεται δηλοῦν
ἑκάστοτε λέγων

μή “ὙΠ ἸῊἤ 2 ἊΨ 3 > /

ἔπος τ᾽ EpaT ἔκ τ᾽ ὀνόμαζεν'
" A \ ta “A ” Ὶ [ > ’
ἔπος γὰρ τὸ ῥῆμα καλεῖν εἴωθεν, ὥσπερ ἐν τούτοις

Ἂν ᾽’ J «-- Ψ W wie
ὦ γύναι, 7 μάλα τοῦτο ἔπος Gupadyes* ἔειπες
καὶ

χαῖρε, πάτερ ὦ ξεῖνε, ἔπος δ᾽ εἴπερ ti” λέλεκ-

ται

δεινόν, ἄφαρ τὸ φέροιεν ἀναρπάξασαι ἄελλαι.

” \ , yw 3 3 7 ” 4 8
οὔτε yap σύνδεσμον οὔτ᾽ ἀρθρον΄ οὔτε πρόθεσιν
δεινόν ἐστι καὶ θυμαλγὲς εἰπεῖν ἀλλὰ ῥῆμα
πράξεως eupavtiKov™ αἰσχρᾶς 7 πάθους τινὸς
ἀνεπιτηδείου. διὸ καὶ ποιητὰς καὶ συγγραφεῖς

1 διαλογίζεσθαι -J, δ. Ἶ “ὀνόματος -ς
3 διάλογος -β', n, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5, Bonon.
4 θυγαλγὲς -J?.
ae ἔπος τ᾽ εἴπερ τε -β. n, Voss. 16, Escorial ‘T-1 1-5, Bonon.
" βέβακται -Homer.
ἡ ἄθερον Jt.
* πρότερον εὖ ἧς 2.
ῥίζα -J*, g.
τῇ Ae -€.
1 ἢ -Meziriac ; ἐκ -Mss.

α “Blakes ‘Sophist 262 c 4-7 pee η 2-6.

> Cf. [Apuleius], Περὶ ἑρμηνείας iv (p. 178, 4-7 Biren :
Apollonius Dyscolus, De Constructione i, (p. 28, 6-9
[Uhlig] with Priscian, Inst. Grammatica xvii, 22 =i, pp. 121,
21-122, 1 [Hertz]); and Scholia in Dionysii Thracis ‘Artem
Grammaticam, pp. 515, 19-517, 32 (Hilgard), where the

112

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1010

berish rather than speaking a language. When a
verb is combined with a noun, however, the result
is straightway language and speech. Wherefore it
is reasonable that some people consider these alone
to be parts of speech ®; and this perhaps is what
Homer wants to make clear each time he says

gave word to the thought and announced it,°

for it was his custom to call the verb “‘ word,”’ as in
these lines :

Verily, woman, a heart-breaking word is this thou hast
spoken 4

and

Joy to thee, reverend guest ; if offensive words have been
spoken,

May they be gone forthwith swept up and away by a
whirlwind.¢

For what is offensive and heart-breaking to speak is
not a conjunction or an article or a preposition but a
verb expressive of a shameful action or of some im-
proper experience. This is also why we customarily
praise or censure writers of poetry and prose in

doctrine is ascribed to the Peripatetics and some of the
supporting arguments are answered (cf. Priscian, op. cit.,
ii, 15 and xi, 6-7 =i, p. 54, 5-7 and pp. 551, 17-552, 14
{Hertz]). An elaborate defence of the doctrine, in many
particulars like Plutarch’s, is given by Ammonius (De
Interpretatione, pp. 11, 1-15, 13), who with explicit reference
to the Cratylus and the Sophist asserts that Plato anticipated
Aristotle in holding it (De Interpretatione, Ὁ. 40, 26-30 ;
p. 48, 30-32; τ. 60, 1-3 and 17-23). CF. Aristotle, Rhetoric
1404 Ὁ 26-27; Theophrastus and Boethus of Sidon in
Simplicius, Categ., p. 10, 24-27 and p. 11, 23-25; and
Adrastus in Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 49, 7-9 (Hiller).

¢ Iliad vi, 253 and 406 ; vii, 108; and passim,

4 Odyssey xxiii, 183.

¢ Odyssey viil, 408-409,

115

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1010) “" ᾿Αττικοῖς ὁ ὀνόμασιν ὁ δεῖνα κέχρηται Kat’ καλοῖς
ῥήμασιν᾽ ᾿ὴ πάλιν ' “πεζοῖς ᾿᾿ τὸ δέ γε “πεζοῖς ’”
ἢ “ καλοῖς ᾿ πάλιν “Ὧ καὶ ᾿Αττικοῖς ἄρθροις ’
οὐκ ἂν εἴποι τις Edpimidny ἢ Θουκυδίδην διει-
λέχθαι.

8. “Τί οὖν; ᾿᾿--φήσαι τις ἄν--' οὐδὲν ταῦτα
, \ / ᾽) ες A 39 nv
συμβάλλεται πρὸς λόγον; ᾿ ἔγωγε φήσαιμ᾽ av
ὥσπερ ἅλας" συμβάλλεσθαι πρὸς ὄψον ὕδωρ δὲ
πρὸς μᾶζαν. Eunvos* δὲ καὶ TO πῦρ ἔφασκεν
ἡδυσμάτων εἶναι κράτιστον. ἀλλ᾽ οὔθ᾽ ὕδωρ μάζης
ἢ ἄρτου μέρος εἶναι λέγομεν" οὔτε πῦρ οὔθ᾽ ἅλας
ἐψήματος ἢ ἢ βρώματος," ὧν ἀεὶ τυγχάνομεν δεόμε-
νοι, οὐχ ὥσπερ ὁ λόγος πολλάκις ἐκείνων ἀπροσ-

D δεής ἐστιν, ὡς δοκεῖ μοι [περὶ Ῥωμαίων] € ἔχειν ὁ
Ῥωμαίων, ζ(ᾧ νῦν ὁμοῦ τι πάντες ἄνθρωποι
χρῶνται" προθέσεις τε γὰρ ἀφήρηκε πλὴν ὀλίγων"

1 καὶ -J1', g 3 omitted by all other mss.
2 Diibner (τὸ δὲ πεζοῖς -Wyttenbach) ; 6 δέ γε πεζοῖς -J},
2; πεζοῖς δὲ Pareto T-11-5;3 ὅδε δὲ πεζοῖς -all other mss.
* εὔωνος -N, Voss. 16, εἰ (?).
. κράτιστον. ; + μέρος εἶναι -omitted by J, g, a, A, y, E,
: κράτιστον . . .- εἶναι λέγομεν -omitted by B (added in
margin by sb B
ἀρώματος -\, ε-
7 Diibner ie ὁ Ῥωμαίων ἔχειν, -Wyttenbach);: μοι
περὶ ῥωμαίων λέγειν ὁρῶ μέλλω (μ έλλων τβ, 0, Voss. 16, Bo- |
non.) νῦν -all mss. except atonal T-11-5 (μοι περὶ ῥω- |

μαίων λέγειν dpa... vac. 30... ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ὁμοῦ πάντες).
ὀλίγον -J.

(6

* In such expressions ὄνομα (and the same could be said
of ῥῆμα) is used in a different sense, 7.¢. τὸ κοινῶς ἐπὶ πᾶν μέρος
λόγου διατεῖνον (cf. Simplicius, Categ., p. 25,'14-17 ; Scholia
in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, p. 522, 21-28
{ Hilgard]).

> Evenus, frag. 10 (Bergk, Poetae Lyr. Graec. ii*, p. 271 ;

114

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1010

terms like these, “ the nouns employed by so-and-so
are “ Attic’ and the verbs are ‘ elegant’ ” or again
“ pedestrian,’ * whereas it would not be said by
anyone that in the language of Euripides or Thucy-
dides ‘‘ pedestrian”’ or again “ elegant and Attic
articles ’’ are used.

3. ““ What then? ’’—one might say—* Do these
words contribute nothing to speech?” I should say
that they do make a contribution to it Just as salt
does to a dish of food and water to a barley-cake.
Evenus even said that fire is the best of sauces.?
Nevertheless, we do not say either that water is a
part of barley-cake or wheat-bread or that fire or
salt is a part of greens or victuals, although we do
always require fire and salt, whereas speech unlike
this often has no need of those additional words.
So it is, it seems to me, with the speech of the
Romans, which now is used by nearly all men, for it
has eliminated all prepositions except for a few ¢
Edmonds, Elegy and Iambus i, p. 476). The remark is
ascribed to Evenus in Quomodo Adulator ab Amico Inter-
noscatur 50 a and in Quaest. Conviv. 697 c-p but to Prodicus
in De Tuenda Sanitate 126 Ὁ.

¢ According to Hartman (De Plutarcho, p. 583) this is an
erroneous generalization from those Latin expressions of
relations of place in which no preposition is used ; according
to H. J. Rose (The Roman Questions of Plutarch {Oxford,
1924], p. 198 ad lIxvii [208 a]) it is rather an exaggeration
suggested by the contemporary fondness for archaic and
poetical constructions which omitted the prepositions of
Ciceronian grammar; and both these observations may be
partial explanations of Plutarch’s “ odd statement,” but it
should be remembered also that many Latin ‘‘ prepositions ”’
were regarded by the Greeks as not being prepositions at all
(Priscian, Jnst. Grammatica xiv, 9-10 and 23=ii, pp. 28,
19-29, 11 and pp. 36, 20-37, 6 [Hertz]). From a different
point of view Plutarch’s statement without being noticed is

115

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1010) ἁπάσας, τῶν TE καλουμένων ἄρθρων οὐδὲν προσ-
δέχεται τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλὰ ὥσπερ ἀκρασπέδοις"
χρῆται τοῖς ὀνόμασι. καὶ οὐ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν,
ὅπου καὶ “Ὅμηρος ἐπέων κόσμῳ περιγενόμενος
ὀλίγοις τῶν ὀνομάτων ἄρθρα ὥσπερ λαβὰς ἐκπώ-
pact μὴ" δεομένοις 7 λόφους" κράνεσιν ἐπιτίθησι"
διὸ καὶ" παράσημα τῶν ἐπῶν ἐν οἷς ταῦτα ποιεῖ"
γέγονεν, ὡς τὸ

Αἴαντι δὲ μάλιστα cree θυμὸν ὄρινε
τῷ Ἰελαμωνιάδῃ
καὶ τὸ
ποίεεν," ὄφρα τὸ κῆτος ὑπεκπροφυγὼνἾ ἀἁλέοιτο"
A 4 A ’ [2 A 3 »
καὶ βραχέα πρὸς τούτοις ἕτερα. τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοις
E μυρίοις οὖσιν ἄρθρου μὴ προσόντος οὐδὲν εἰς
tA » A / ς 4 Ψ
σαφήνειαν οὐδὲ κάλλος ἡ φράσις βλάπτεται.
1 Nleziriac ; κρασπέδοις -MSS.
2 μὴ -B?, n, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5, Bonon.; omitted
by all other mss.
λόφοις -1, δ. : καὶ -omitted by ae
ποιεῖν τε: "pe (1.6. προγέγονεν) -Fscorial 1-11-ὅ.
ποιεῖν 13 ποίεον -Homer. 7 ὑπερπροφυγὼν -Ἡ.
ἀλλέοιτο -Eseorial T-11-5 ; ἀλέαιτο -Homer.
ἄρθρου δὲ μὴ -J, ἕξ.

orn ὦ ὦ

supported by R. Poncelet (Cicéron Traducteur de Platon
{Paris, 1957]), who characterizes the Latin penury of analy-
tical instruments as “ pas d’articles, peu de prépositions, peu
de participes ’’ (p. 18) and considers the rudimentary prepo-
sitional system of Latin along with its lack of an article to be
one of the principal reasons for Cicero’s difficulties in trans-
lating the philosophical Greek of Plato (pp. 52-61, pp. 105-
129, p. 139).

¢ Cf. Quintilian, Jnstit. Orat. i, 4, 19; Vriscian, Jnst.
Grammatica ii, 16 and xvii, 27 (i, p. 54, 13-16 and ii, p. 124,
16-18 [Hertz]).

ὑ Cf. Democritus, frag. B 21 (D.-K.) and Pausanias, ix, 30,

116

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1010

and of the words called articles admits none at all ¢
but employs nouns without tassels, as it were. This
is not surprising either, since Homer too, who ex-
celled in marshalling words,’ attaches articles to
few of his nouns, as it were crests to helmets or
handles to goblets that do not require them ὁ ; and
that is the very reason why critical marks ὦ have
been put at the verses in which he does so, for
example :

Wrathful fury he chiefly excited in fiery Ajax,

The Telamonian one,?
and

Built it to let him elude and evade the notorious monster ἢ

and a few others besides. In the rest, however,
countless as they are, though an article is not
present, the expression suffers nothing in clarity or
beauty.

4 and 12. The phrase κόσμον ἐπέων occurs in a line of
Solon’s quoted by Plutarch himself (Solon viii, 2 [82 c]) 3 ef.
also Parmenides, frag. B 8, 52 (D.-K.) and Philetas of Cos,
frag. 8 (Diehl, Anth. Lyr. Graec. ii, p. 211)=10 (Powell,
Collectanea Alexandrina, p. 92).

¢ There were ἐκπώματα of countless kinds (Clement of
Alexandria, Paedagogus τις iii, 35, 2), many without handles
(Athenaeus, xi, 783 a, 478 b, and 481 d).

a Cf. Aristotle, Soph. Elench. 177 b 6 (κἀκεῖ 42:0 ὁ παράσημα
ποιοῦνται).

¢ Iliad xiv, 459-460. Leaf (The Iliad 115, p. 97 ad 458-459)
calls the use of τῷ in 460 “ hardly Homeric.”’ Cf. in general
Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem ed. Dindorf i, p. 70, 10-11
ad B 1 and p. 339, 14-15 ad Καὶ 1 (ἔστι yap ὁ ποιητὴς παρα-
λειπτικὸς τῶν ἄρθρων).

f Jliad xx, 147. For the use of the article here cf. Scholia
Graeca in Homeri Iliadem ed. Dindorf ii, p. 199, 19-20;
Leaf (The Iliad ii?, p. 359) calls it very rare in Homer and
says that “‘ instances such as this are confined to late passages
in the /liad.”

117

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1010) 4. Kat μὴν οὔτε ζῷον οὔτ᾽ ὄργανον οὔὐθ᾽ ὅπλον
eee » ~ 3» > \ > ’ / >
out ἄλλο τῶν ὄντων οὐδὲν οἰκείου μέρους ἀφαι-
ἢ \ ͵ , , / 1 999
ρέσει καὶ στερήσει πέφυκε γίγνεσθαι KaAALoV' οὐδ
3 , Ὁ / / / ?
ἐνεργέστερον οὐδὲ ἥδιον" λόγος δέ, συνδέσμων ἐξ-
αἱρεθέντων, πολλάκις ἐμπαθεστέραν καὶ κινητικω-
τέραν ἔχει δύναμιν: ὡς ὁ τοιοῦτος
ἄλλον ζωὸν ἔχουσα" νεούτατον, ἄλλον ἄουτον,
ἄλλον τεθνειῶτα" κατὰ μόθον ἕλκε ποδοῖιν'

\ \ - , ΝΠ \ ‘ x
καὶ τὰ τοῦ Δημοσθένους ταυτὶ “᾿ πολλὰ yap ἂν
, ε 7 ie 2 le \ v9 20> Ὁ
ποιήσειεν ὁ τύπτων, ὧν' ὁ παθὼν eu’ οὐδ᾽ ἂν
Ἐ πα εἰλ ὃ v4 θ᾽ e / “ 4 ~ Bx / A
γγεῖλαι δύναιθ᾽ ἑτέρῳ, TH σχήματι. τῷ βλέμ
ματι τῇ φωνῇ, ὅταν ὑβρίζων, ὅταν ἐχθρὸς" ὑπ-
ἄρχων, ὅταν κονδύλοις," ὅταν ἐπὶ κόρρης"" ταῦτα
κινεῖ," ταῦτ᾽ ἐξίστησιν αὑτῶν ἀνθρώπους" ἀήθεις
τοῦ" προπηλακίζεσθαι. καὶ πάλιν “ἀλλ᾽ οὐ"
Μειδίας: ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς ἡμέρας" λέγει, λοι-

- “A A >
δορεῖται, Bod. χειροτονεῖταί τις ; Μειδίας “Ava-
1011 γυράσιος" προβέβληται. []λουτάρχου" προξενεῖ,

1 κάλλιστον -J, g. 2 ἔχουσα -omitted by J’, g.

3 χεθνηῶτα -Homer (cf. Scholia Graeca in Ifomeri Iliadem
ed. Dindorf ii, p. 176 ad 537).
τύπτων, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ὧν -Demosthenes.
ὅταν ὡς ὑβρίζων, ὅταν ὡς ἐχθρὸς -Demosthenes.
ὅταν κονδύλοις -omitted by J}, g.
κόρης -J, £3 κόρης τύπτη -Escorial T-11-5.
κινῇ -J, g, Escorial T-11-5.
αὐτῶν ἐξίστησιν ἀνθρώπους -J : αὐτοῦ ἐξίστησιν ἀνθρώπους
-£3 ἐξίστησιν αὐτοὺς ἀνθρώπους -Escorial T-11-5; ἐξίστησιν
ἀνθρώπους αὑτῶν -Demosthenes.

10 ἀήθους τοῦ -€3 ἀήθεις ὄντας τοῦ -Demosthenes.

11 οὐδὲ -£. .

12 γῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης -Demosthenes S and Y (but A and
F agree with Plutarch). 13 [Demosthenes ; τι -Mss.

14 Escorial T-1 1-5 and Demosthenes 4 ἀναγυρράσιος -all
other mss. 15 )emosthenes ; πλουτάρχῳ -MSS.

118

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1010-1011

4. Moreover, it is not natural for any living being
or instrument or weapon or any other existing thing
to become more beautiful or more effective or more
pleasant by the removal or loss of a part that belongs
to it®; but frequently when conjunctions have
been eliminated speech has a force more emotional
and more stirring,? as in a case like this :

One just wounded alive in her clutches, another un-

wounded,

Dead already another she dragged by the feet through the
turmoil ¢

and this by Demosthenes: “‘ He who strikes one

might do many things, some of which his victim
could not even report to another, by his posture, by
his look, by his tone of voice, when insultingly, when
in hostility, when with the fist, when with a slap in
the face; these are the things that stir up, that
drive to distraction men unused to contemptuous
treatment.’* And again: ‘ Not Meidias, how-
ever; but from this day forth he talks, reviles,
shouts. Is someone to be elected? Meidias of
Anagyrus is a candidate. He represents the interests

α Cf. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam,
pp. 516, 37-517, 4 (Hilgard).

> Cf. [Plutarch], De Vita Homeri 40 (vii, pp. 355, 20-356,
5 [Bernardakis]) ; for Plutarch, Caesar 1, 3-4 (731 F) cf. R.
Jeuckens, Plutarch von Chaeronea und die Rhetorik (Strass-
burg, 1908), pp. 162-163.

¢ Iliad xviii, 536-537 =(Hesiod], Scutum 157-158 (ef. F.
Solmsen, Hermes, xciii [1965], pp. 1-6).

4 Demosthenes, Oratio xxi, 72. The passage is quoted and
analysed by “ Longinus’’ (De Sublimitate xx-xxi) for the
combination of several figures, asyndeton included ; ef. also
Tiberius Rhetor, [epi σχημάτων 40 (Rhetores Craeci iii,
p. 78, 1-4 [Spengel}).

119

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1011) τἀπόρρητ᾽ οἶδεν, ἡ πόλις αὐτὸν οὐ χωρεῖ. διὸ καὶ
σφόδρα τὸ ἀσύνδετον σχῆμα παρὰ τοῖς τὰς"
τέχνας γράφουσιν εὐδοκιμεῖ" τοὺς" δ᾽ ἄγαν νομί-
μους ἐκείνους καὶ μηδένα σύνδεσμον ἐκ τῆς
συνηθείας ἀφιέντας ὡς ἀργὴν καὶ ἀπαθῆ καὶ
κοπώδη τῷ ἀμεταβλήτῳ τὴν φράσιν ποιοῦντας
αἰτιῶνται. τὸ δὲ τοὺς διαλεκτικοὺς μάλιστα συν-
δέσμων δεῖσθαι πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἀξιωμάτων συναφὰς
καὶ συμπλοκὰς καὶ διαζεύξεις ὥσπερ ἡνιόχους
ζυγῶν καὶ τὸν Cev)* Κύκλωπος ᾿Οδυσσέα λύγων
πρὸς τὴν τῶν προβάτων σύν(δεσιν ΝΠ
λόγου τὸν" σύνδεσμον ἀλλ᾽ ὄργανόν. τι, συνδετικὸν"

Β ἀποφαίνει, καθάπερ ὠνόμασται, καὶ συνεκτικὸν οὐ

παρ᾽ οἷς -n, Voss. 16.

τὰς -omitted by a, A, y, E, B,

τῆς -J15 τοὺς -all bile MSS.

<év> -added by Emperius (Op. Philol., P- 340).

Hubert after Bernardakis (λύγων πρὸς τῶν προβάτων τὴν

σύνδεσιν <Odyssey ix, 425 and 427> οὐ): : λυγῶν πρὸς τὴν
τῶν προβάτων οὐ -J, £3 tnrcvat “πρὸς τὴν τῶν προβάτων συν

aor O ND =

. vac. 83 (first 5 erased) . . οὐ -B (civ... vac. 57... ob
3 -Bonon.) ; Avy@vra πρὸς τὴν τῶν “προβάτων. 4 Weer tae
ov -N, Voss. 163; λέγοντα πρὸς τὴν τῶν sipB iT WARE,

64... 00-Escor 12] -11-ὅ ; ᾽Οδυσσέα. .. ν80. 80 -ἃ : 69 -α:
100 -Α: 84-y; 87-E; 88 -Β ; 69 -e€... ov.

8 τὸν omitted by J, 83 τοῦ -α.

7 χιτῶν 23 omitted by all other mss.

8 συνδεκτικὸν -J, g.

¢ Plutarch, the tyrant of Eretria (ef. Plutarch, Phocion
xii-xiii {747 a-z]; Demosthenes, Oratio v, 5 {with scholion
ad loc.| and xxi, 110).

Ὁ Demosthenes, Oratio xxi, 200. Part of this passage is
quoted for asyndeton by [Aristides], Libri Rhetorici i, 28
(pp. 13, 23-14, 1 [W. Schmid)}).

¢ Cf. Demetrius, De Elocutione 193-194 and 268-269 ;
‘* Longinus,” De Sublimitate xxi; Tiberius Khetor, Περὶ

120

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1011

of Plutarch,¢ knows the secrets of state, is too big
for the city.” This is just the reason why the
figure of asyndeton is very highly esteemed by the
writers of the rhetorical manuals, and those who
abide too strictly by the rules and leave out no con-
junction of the ordinary language they censure for
making their style dull and unemotional and weari-
some from lack of variety.¢ That the dialecticians
have special need of conjunctions for the connexions
and combinations and disjunctions of propositions,@
as charioteers have of yokes and as Odysseus <in the
cave) of Cyclops had of withes for binding the sheep
together ¢¢. . .), this shows not that the conjunction
is a part of speech’ but that it is a kind of instru-
ment for conjoining, just as its name indicates, that

σχημάτων 40 (Rhetores (rraeci iii, Ὁ. 78, 11-15 [Spengel]) ;
[Cicero], Ad Herennium iv, 41. lor αἱ τέχναι =“‘ rhetorical
manuals ’’ ef. Isocrates, Adv. Sophistas 19 (ras καλουμένας
τέχνας) with the scholion ad loc.

¢ The dialecticians are the Stoics (see note d on page 107
supra). ‘The propositions in question are the conditional
(συνημμένον), the conjunctive (συμπεπλεγμένον), and the dis-
junctive (διεζευγμένον) ; and the σύνδεσμοι required for these
are respectively 6 συναπτικός (εἰ), ὁ συμπλεκτικός (καί), and ὁ
διαζευκτικός (ἤτοι Or ἢ) : ef. Diogenes Laertius, vii, 71-72
(S.V.F. ii, frag. 207); Galen, lnstitutio Logica iii, 3-4 and
iv, 4-6 (pp. 8, 13-9, 8 and pp. 10, 13-11, 12 [Kalbfleisch] =
S.V.F. ii, frags. 208 and 217); and Plutarch, De E 386 r—
387 a, De Sollertia Animalium 969 a-s, and De An. Proc.
in Timaeo 1026 B-c.

e Of. Odyssey ix, 427 and Euripides, Cyclops 225.

f As the Stoics held it to be: cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii,
57-58 (S.V.F. ii, frag. 147 and iii, p. 214, 1-2); S.V.F. ii,
frag. 148; Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam,
p. 356, 13-15 and p. 517, 33-34 with p. 519, 26-32 (Hilgard).
Posidonius wrote against those who said that conjunctions
οὐ δηλοῦσι μέν τι αὐτὸ δὲ μόνον τὴν φράσιν συνδέουσι (Apollonius
Dyscolus, De Conjunctionibus, Ὁ. 214, 4-8 [Schneider]).

12]

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1011) πάντων ἀλλὰ τῶν οὐχ ἁπλῶς λεγομένων, εἰ μὴ

3 “-- / \ δι ὦ \ “-- ι ’ \
καὶ τοῦ φορτίου Tov ἱμάντα καὶ Tod βιβλίου τὴν
χὰ 3 Ε ͵ 3 ae Ad ΠῚ ὅ
κόλλαν ἀξιοῦσι μέρος εἶναι καὶ νὴ Ata’ τὰς δια-

\ A λ ,ὔ e =r A 10 A
νομας TOU TOALTEVLATOS, WS EAEVYE ANA Ὡς, KOA-
dav ὀνομάζων τὰ θεωρικὰ τῆς δημοκρατίας.
ποῖος δὲ σύνδεσμος οὕτως ἕν ἐκ πολλῶν ἀξίωμα
ποιεῖ συμπλέκων καὶ συνάπτων ὡς ἡ μάρμαρος"

\ ’ A \ A \ 7 5ΔᾺ79
τὸν συλλιπαινόμενον᾽ διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς σίδηρον ; ἀλλ
οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲ λέγεται τοῦ σιδήρου μέρος" καίτοι
{τὰ τοιαῦτά γε τοῖς κεραννυμένοις ἐνδυόμενα
καὶ συντηκόμενα ποιεῖ τι [καὶ πάσχει" κοινὸν ἐκ
πλειόνων. τοὺς δὲ συνδέσμους εἰσὶν οἱ μὴ νό-

1 γὴ Δία -X, βῆ, n, Voss. 16, Bonon., Escorial T-11-5 ;
εἶναι νὴ Δία καὶ -ε: νὴ Δία -omitted by all other mss.

2 θεωρητικὰ -J, g, Voss. 16, Escorial T-11-5.
μάρμερος -J 9 Escorial T-11-51 3 μάμερ τ
σὐύλανλιπαινόμενον -J.

.3 καὶ τοιαῦτα -J, £3 καίτοι ταῦτα -all other mss.

: [καὶ πάσχει] -deleted by Hartman (De Plutarcho, p. 588).

’ὔ
7 πλοιόνων τῷ.

= (ὦ

α That is even for the Stoics the conjunction holds together
only a molecular proposition, this consisting of two or more
atomic (simple) propositions, each of which itself consists of
a subject and predicate not connected by any conjunction :
cf. Sextus, Adv. Math. viii, 93-95 and 108-109 (S.V.F. ii,
p. 66, 28-37 and pp. 70, 36-71, 2) with Mates, Stoic Logic,
pp. 95-96; and Diogenes Laertius, vii, 68-69 and 71-72
(S.V.F. ii, frags. 203 and 207).

> Cf. [Apuleius], Περὶ ἑρμηνείας iv (p. 178, 7-11 [Thomas]) ;
Ammonius, De Interpretatione, pp. 12, 25-13, 6 and p. 67,
15-19 and p. 73, 19-22; Simplicius, Categ., p. 64, 23-25 ;
Scholia in Dionysti Thracis Artem Grammaticam, Ὁ. 515,
19-29 (Hilgard).

ὁ Demades, frag. 13 (Baiter-Sauppe, Oratores Attici ii,
p. 315 B 38-42) =xxxvi (De Falco, Demade Oratore?, p. 31).

4 See note d on 1011 a supra.

122

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1011

is for holding together not all statements but those
that are non-simple,7—unless one also maintains
that the strap is part of the load and the glue part
of the book ® and the dole, by heaven, part of the
government, as Demades said when he called the
festival-grants the glue of the democracy. What
kind of conjunction, moreover, by combining and con-
necting ὦ makes of many a proposition so thoroughly
one as the marble makes the iron that is smelted with
it in the fire? The marble, however, is not and is
not said to be a part of the iron; and yet things of
this kind make something common out of a multi-
plicity ὁ by permeating the objects that are being
blended and by being fused with them.’ As to con-
junctions, however, there are people who believe

ε Cf. 1010 a supra: ἕν τι πειρώμενοι κοινὸν ἐξ αὐτῶν ποιεῖν.

7 The marble is not fused with the iron, as Plutarch
apparently believed it is, but supplies the limestone which
unites with the non-ferrous minerals of the ore (the “ gan-
gue ’’) and with the ash of the fuel to form the “‘ cinder ”’ or
‘* slag.”’ It may be such a flux to which reference is made by
[Aristotle], De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus 833 Ὁ 24-28 and
by Theophrastus, De Lapidibus 9 (cf. H. Bliimner, Techno-
logie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Kiinste bei Griechen
und Rémern iv { Leipzig, 1887], pp. 219-220 ; A. W. Persson,
Eisen und Eisenbereitung in dltester Zeit [Lund, 1934], pp.
15-17; Εἰ, R. Caley and J. F. C. Richards, Theophrastus on
Stones [Columbus, 1956], p. 77); but in no ancient text, so
far as I know, is an explanation of the process offered,
although the purpose of the flux used in refining gold is
mentioned (cf. Agatharchides in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod.
250, p. 448, 19-30 [Bekker]; Pliny, V.H. xxxiii, 60; H.
Bliimner, op. cit., pp. 131-135). It is to a different stage in
the working of the iron that Plutarch refers in Quaest.
Conviv. 660 c and De Primo Frigido 954 a-B; cf. also
Η. D. P. Lee on Aristotle, Meteorologica 383 a 32~b 7 (L.C.L.,
pp. 324-399).

123

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

͵ v4 a 3 > >
(1011) μίζοντες ἕν τι ποιεῖν ἀλλ᾽ ἐξαρίθμησιν εἶναι τὴν
,ὔ 7 3 ᾽ 9 lon \ “
διάλεκτον, ὥσπερ ἀρχόντων ἐφεξῆς (ἢ) ἡμερῶν
/
καταλεγομένων.
\ \ ~ ~ ς \ > ,
ὅ. Καὶ μὴν τῶν γε λοιπῶν ἡ μὲν ἀντωνυμία
~ , 2 9 7 , 9 ’ - ΄
περιφανῶς γένος" ὀνόματός ἐστιν, οὐχ ἡ πτώσεων
μετέχει μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ κυριωτάτην ἅμα τῇ
φάσει" ποιεῖν δεῖξιν ἐνίας ἐπὶ τῶν ὡρισμένων ἐκ-
φερομένας" καὶ οὐκ olda ὅτι μᾶλλον ὁ “ Σωκρά-
τὴν ᾿ φθεγξάμενος ἢ ὁ “᾿ τοῦτον ᾿᾿ εἰπὼν ὀνομαστὶ"
Uy VA
πρόσωπον δεδήλωκεν.
ec \ / v4 A wh
6. Ἢ δὲ καλουμένη μετοχή, μῖγμα ῥήματος
οὖσα καὶ ὀνόματος, καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν,
ω 3 Ν 4 \ ~ \ > ~ Φ 2
ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὰ κοινὰ θηλυκῶν καὶ ἀρρενικῶν ὀνό-
/ we | / 2 / A A
D ματα, συντάττεται δ᾽ ἐκείνοις, ἐφαπτομένη Tots μὲν
χρόνοις τῶν ῥημάτων ταῖς δὲ πτώσεσι τῶν ὀνο-
μάτων. οἱ δὲ διαλεκτικοὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα καλοῦσιν
1 «ἢΣ -added by Meziriac ; implied by Amyot’s version.
> γένος περιφανῶς -J, Ε΄.
3. Wyttenbach ; φύσει -Μ88.
Σωκράτη -Ν. 5 ὀνόματι -J, £.
8 καὶ ὀνόματος -omitted by J}, g.

7 ἑαυτὸ -Χ.

« Cf. the sceptical argument that a statement or propo-
sition cannot exist, because the expressions, which must be
its constituent parts, do not coexist but are at most successive
(Sextus, Adv. Math. i, 132-138 with Pyrrh. [Typ. ii, 109 and
Adv. Math. viii, 81-84, 132, and 136).

> i.e. demonstratives (ef. Apollonius Dyscolus, De Prono-
mine, pp. 9, 17-10, 7 and p. 10, 18-26 [Schneider]: Scholia

124

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1011

that they do not make anything one but that
language is an enumeration like that of annual
magistrates ¢or) of days listed one after another.*
5. Now, of the rest the pronoun is patently a
kind of noun, not only as it shares the cases of the
noun but also by reason of the fact that some pro-
nouns,” being expressions of definite reference, make
an indication fully decisive as soon as they are
spoken ; and I do not know that a speaker uttering
‘Socrates ’’ has by calling a name more clearly in-
dicated a person than has one saying “ this man.” ¢
6. And as for what is called the participle, since
it is a mixture of verb and noun,? it does not exist
of itself,¢ to be sure, as the nouns of common feminine
and masculine gender do not either’; but it is
ranked with those parts of speech, since through its
tenses it borders on the verbs and through its cases
on the nouns. Terms of this kind, moreover, are

in Dionysti Thracis Artem Grammaticam, pp. 77, 25-78, 6
with p. 86, 7-13 and p. 260, 21-24 [Hilgard]).

¢ Cf. Sextus, Adv. Math. viii, 96-97 (S.V.F. ii, frag. 205
[pp. 66, 38-67, 9]) : according to the Stoics Σωκράτης κάθηται
is intermediate between the indefinite ris κάθηται and the
definite οὗτος κάθηται.

4 Cf. Dionysius Thrax, Ars Grammatica ὃ 15 (p. 60, 9-4
[Uhlig]) ; Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam,
pp. 255, 25-256, 7 (Hilgard); Ammonius, De Interpre-
tatione, p. 15, 2-4.

« Cf. Priscian, Inst. Grammatica xi, 2 (i, p. 549, 3-6
{Hertz]: ‘‘ ideo autem participium separatim non tradebant
[scil. Stoici] partem orationis .. .’’) and ii, 16 (i, p. 54, 9-10
{Hertz]); Scholia in Dionysit Thracis Artem Grammaticam,
p. 518, 17-22 (Hilgard).

7 Cf. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam,
pp. 218, 18-219, 15 and especially pp. 525, 32-526, 11 (Hil-
gard); KR. Schneider, Apollonii Dyscoli Quae Supersunt i, 2
(Commentarium ...in Apollonii Scripta Minora), pp. 24-25.

125

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1011) ἀντανακλάστους," οἷον ὁ φρονῶν ἀντὶ" τοῦ φρο-
νίμου καὶ ὁ σωφρονῶν' ἀντὶ" τοῦ σώφρονός ἐστιν,
ὡς ὀνομάτων καὶ προσηγοριῶν δύναμιν ἔ ἔχοντα.

ΤΟ δ γε μὴν προθέσεις ἔστιν ἐπικράνοις καὶ
βάσεσι καὶ ὑποθέμασιν, ὡς οὐ λόγους ἀλλὰ περὶ
τοὺς λόγους μᾶλλον οὔσας, ὁμοιοῦν. ὅρα δὲ" μὴ
κὄμμασι καὶ θραύσμασιν ὀνομάτων ἐοίκασιν, ὥσπερ
γραμμάτων σπαράγμασιν" καὶ κεραίαις ot’ σπεύ-

δοντες ypagovor: TO yap “ ἐμβῆναι’ ἀν τ “* éx-

3
βῆναι" συγκοπῇὴ προφανής" ἐστι τοῦ “ ἐντὸς
~ \
KE βῆναι ᾿᾿ καὶ τοῦ “ ἐκτὸς Prva,’ Kat τὸ ‘‘ mpo-
A ’ \ A
γενέσθαι τοῦ ‘‘ πρότερον γενέσθαι," καὶ τὸ

“ καθίζειν ᾿ τοῦ “κάτω ἵζειν ὥσπερ ἀμέλει

τὸ “λίθους βάλλειν ᾿᾿ καὶ “ τοίχους ὀρύσσειν ”’

1 R. T. Schmidt (Stoicorum Grammatica {Halle, 1839],
p- 46, Nn. 66) 3 ἀνακλάστους -MSS.

2 ἀντὶ -G. F. Shoemann (Die Lehre von den Redetheilen
[Berlin, 1862], p. 39, n. 1); ἀπὸ -Mss.
“ σώφρων -J, 2
ἀντὶ -G. F. cae (loc. cit.) ; ἀπὸ -MSS.
ὅρα δὴ -J', σ᾽ : ὅσα δὲ -ε.
σπαράγματα - 7 οἷον -J!, g.
περιφανῶς -J', δ: : προφανῶς -B*, n, Voss. 16, Bonon.,
sia T-11-5.

+99

oon &

i Moe -X; xaraifew -all other mss.

α Cf. Priscian, Inst. Grammatica xi, | (i, pp. 548, 14-549,
1 (Hertz]): ‘sic igitur supra dicti philosophi [scil. Stoici]
etiam participium aiebant appellationem esse reciprocam, id
est ἀντανάκλαστον προσηγορίαν, hoc modo: legens est lector
et lector legens, cursor est currens et currens cursor, amator
est amans et amans amator, vel nomen verbale vel modum
verbi casualem.”

> The correction, καὶ mpoonyopidy, is required because the
Stoics had restricted ὄνομα to proper nouns and had made a
separate part of speech called προσηγορία to cover common
nouns and noun adjectives (Diogenes Laertius, vii, 57-58

126

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1011

called reciprocals by the dialecticians ὦ on the ground
that they have the force of nouns, that is of appel-
latives,? as for example the reflecting instead of re-
flective and the abstaining instead of abstinent man.°¢

7. The prepositions, for their part, can be likened
to capitals and pedestals and bases as being not
speech but rather appurtenances of speech. Consider
too that they resemble bits and pieces of words 4
like the fragmentary letters and dashes used by
those who write in haste. For “ incoming” and
‘“ outgoing’ are plainly contractions of ‘ coming
within’ and “ going without,” “foregoing” of
“ going before,” and “ undersetting ᾿ of “ setting
underneath,” just as it is, of course, by quickening
and abridging the expression that for “ pelting with
[S. V.F. ii, frag. 147 and iii, p. 213, 27-31]), which the gram-
marians, however, continued to call ὀνόματα or treated as a
sub-class of ὄνομα (Dionysius Thrax, Ars Grammatica, p. 23,
2-3 and pp. 33, 6-34, 2 [Uhlig] with Scholia in Dionysii
Thracis Artem Grammaticam, pp. 214, 17-215, 3 and p. 356,
7-23 and pp. 517, 33-518, 16 [Hilgard}).

¢ The Stoics, for whom the sage alone is φρόνιμος and
σώφρων and alone φρονεῖ and σωφρονεῖ. could hold that ὁ
φρονῶν must always be ὁ φρόνιμος and ὁ σωφρονῶν ὁ σώφρων and
even that ὁ φρόνιμος is always 6 φρονῶν, since the sage’s
exercise of virtue is continual and unremitting (S.V.F. i,
frags. 216 [p. 52, 25-33] and 569 ; iii, p. 149, 16-18). Never-
theless, they did distinguish between 6 φρόνιμος and ὁ φρονῶν
(S.V.F. iii, p. 64, 3-5; cf. iii, frag. 244); and the same
distinction between the appellative and the participle is
implied by Chrysippus in S.V.F. iii, frag. 243 (De Stoic.
Repug. 1046 r—1047 a infra).

4 ὀνομάτων here must have been meant in this general
sense, since Plutarch proceeds to represent the prepositions in
composition as fragments of adverbs and not of what he calls
nouns. Varro also appears to have taken the prepositions,
which he called “‘ praeverbia,” to be adverbs (frag. 267, 4-7
{Funaioli, Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta i, Ὁ. 286]).

127

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1011) “ λιθοβολεῖν Ny καὶ “ τοιχωρυχεῖν ’’* ἐπιταχύνοντες

καὶ σφίγγοντες τὴν φράσιν λέγουσι.

8. Διὸ χρείαν μέν τινα τῷ λόγῳ παρέχεται
τούτων ἕκαστον, μέρος δὲ λόγου καὶ στοιχεῖον
οὐδέν ἐστι, πλὴν ὥσπερ εἴρηται τὸ ῥῆμα καὶ
τοὔνομα, ποιοῦντα τὴν πρώτην τό τ᾽ ἀληθὲς καὶ
τὸ ψεῦδος δεχομένην σύνθεσιν, ἣν ot μὲν πρότασιν

δ᾽ ἀξίωμα [ἰλάτων δὲ λόγον προσηγόρευκεν.

1 τυχωρυχεῖν -X : τοιχορυχεῖν -ε.

* Cf. Ammonius, De Interpretatione, p. 12, 27-30 and for
the στοιχεῖον added by Plutarch in explanation of μέρος ibid.,
p. 64, 26-27 and S.V.F, ii, frag. 148 (p. 45, 9-11) with
Scholia in Dionysit Thracis Artem Grammaticam, Ὁ. 356,
1-4 and pp. 514, 35-515, 12 (Hilgard).

δ See 1009 c supra. Of the six “ parts of speech ”’ besides
noun and verb which had there been listed as present in

128

PLATONIC QUESTIONS x, 1011
stones” and “breaking into houses” men say
“ stoning ἡ and “ housebreaking.”’

8. Consequently, while each of these renders some
service to speech, none is a part of speech, that is a
constituent element of it,? except, as has been said,”
the verb and the noun, for these produce the first
combination admitting of truth and falsity, that
combination which has been styled pronouncement
by some and proposition by others but by Plato
speech.

dliad i, 185 Plutarch has accounted for al] except the adverb
(ἐπίρρημα). With his neglect of this ef. what is said of the
Stoics, τὰ ἐπιρρήματα οὔτε λόγου οὔτε ἀριθμοῦ ἠξίωσαν, παρα-
φυάδι καὶ ἐπιφυλλίδι αὐτὰ παρεικάσαντες (Scholia in Dionysii
Thracis Artem Grammaticam, p. 356, 15-16 and p. 520, 16-18
{ Hilgard]), for whose treatment of the adverb cf. M. Pohlenz,
Kleine Schriften i (Hildesheim, 1965), p. 55.

129

τ i ΣῊΝ : 5 ἢ τι 7
Pata eu Ἱ ᾿ Ted
7 ἊΨ ἢ Ὁ
t cat: κα - ᾿ nt Ὶ ᾿ i.
5 λ ἵ ! 4 } te
= 1 bas: ἊΝ ys ᾿ ;
᾿ ; 7 i if ~ ἢ py! i
- - q ᾿
᾿

σὴ alte?

Ἧς

cuit i
pad

ἂν eae

a 7

4 sai or an ROU
τ ΟῚ 3 ἢ ἊΝ Bear) A

te. pupa rm αὶ nsec:
“a si aki ald Re te thes acs srtcass
, ve Phases: stra Ab

Larter ee aR rm τῷ Ἶ:
sestiaut ἢ ah ἣν separ δ τς “§
RIAD ORS ἃ γα ὥβηδδόλο, lane eane kha

iwersabeler elt cid fev bi ἈΠΕ: τνχ νον
τ LOAM, δῇ ΜΝ τ "th ead ag} T ae
adie. Ὁ vend! we at acs oe On| hag Be.
; ᾿ ; / 3 ἮΝ Ἢ ἬΝ

ες ἦ
, \
Ξ .
Ὁ
τ
n\
ἢ
Oe ᾿
| 7 i ἐξ if
χὰ
ay
¢

=

ON THE GENERATION OF
THE SOUL IN THE
TIMAEUS

(DE ANIMAE PROCREATIONE
IN TIMAEO)

4
7 Ay ᾿ ne
i ἃ At
¥ Re) ᾿
“Le ΞΖ 7 if
4 a4
LA ὅλη, Oe
fy Ὁ)... iA &
* hoe Ὁ" Mi
a fine t ‘ ὸ ἢ
“ἢ ᾿
F i i
ὰ ist " Ὁ ᾿ Η U ἣν
; Π “ —
A eee ἢ Por
᾿ ἐᾷν ψ τοῦ
s μη
Κι 4
ὑπ νὼ
μὴ ᾽ Rae
‘ie bly es ie ae ay
7 “ Vs a)
a ¥

“πὸ Yor A παληὸ. am

me es art ae ie

*

( ὴ f ν Φ ne ral ἤν; » 4 ' iy " vr ihe bees
} Y , om re f } j MG 7 "

~ ἣϊ : J
M4 A ~ A i ἔν, ᾿ ‘ Nel
J dj ee Ve
é ἐν ᾿ ν
ἵ ἜΝ
an Γ 7 7 eT. ve he i 4 ee)

INTRODUCTION

Tuis essay, Plutarch says at the very beginning, was
written because the two sons to whom he addresses
it thought that he ought to bring together in a
separate treatise what he had frequently said and
had here and there written of the way he understood
Plato’s doctrine of the soul, since this interpretation
of his was not easy to manage otherwise and was in
need of vindication.

The two sons addressed, who were themselves not
the oldest of Plutarch’s children (cf. Consolatio ad
Uxorem 608 c and 609 p), could not have been much
less than twenty years old when they made this
suggestion, for it is assumed that they are familiar
both with their father’s earlier writings and also with
most of the extensive literature about the disputed
passage of the Timaeus (cf. 1012 Ὁ and 1027 a [chap.
29 init.| onfra). Plutarch, therefore, could not have
been much less than forty-five years old and probably
was a good deal older when he wrote the essay. In
it he refers (1013 καὶ ifra) to an earlier treatise of his
on the cosmogony as Plato meant it; and what in
Plat. Quaest. 1V is together with II the essence of
the interpretation developed in the present essay he
there had already called τὸ πολλάκις ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγόμε-
νον (1003 a). Aspects of it or parallels to certain aspects
of it appear in the Quaest. Conviv., the De E, and the

133

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

De Iside; but there is no conclusive evidence to
prove that any of these is earlier or later than the
present essay.”

The essay is in form ἃ commentary on Timaeus 35
A 1—36 B 5 and falls into two parts, each of which is
begun by way of preface with the quotation of that
section of the Platonic passage with which it deals,
the first (chaps. 1-28 [1012 B—1027 a]) with the
quotation of Timaeus 35 a 1-8 4 and the second
(chaps. 29-33 [1027 a—1030 c])° with that of Timaeus
35 B 4—36 B 5.

This second part is expressly divided into three
sections, in each of which one specific question is
discussed and answered (1027 c-p): first, what the
whole numbers are that Plato adopts in, the double
and triple intervals and that will permit the insertion
of the means described by him (1027 Ὁ-Ὲ and 1017
c—1022 c [chaps. 30 and 11-19]); second, whether
these numbers are to be arranged in a single row or
in the figure of a lambda (1022 c-E and 1027 r—
1028 a [chaps. 20 and 30 b]); and, third, what is
their function or for what effect are they employed
in the composition of the soul (1028 a—1030 c

2 In 1029 ἢ here Plutarch asserts what in Quaest. Conviv.
745 c-F he denies in his own person but then has Ammonius
assert. It would be equally easy to make out a specious but
inconclusive case for the priority of either passage to the
other.

> The traditional numbers of the chapters and the pagina-
tion of Stephanus are retained, though they are confusing
because they antedate the discovery and correction of the
displacement in the mss. The order in the text as rearranged
is: chaps. 1-10 (1012 a—1017 c), chaps. 21-30 (1022 r—
1027 ¥F), chaps. 11-20 (1017 c—1022 &), chaps. 30 b-33
(1027 r—1030 c).

134

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

[chaps. 31-33]). All this by Plutarch’s own admission
(1027 a {chap. 29 znit.] and 1022 c [chap. 20 znit.]})
contains little that is original; and it is of interest
chiefly for the information that it provides about
earlier treatments of Timaeus 35 B 4—36 B 5 and
about the arithmological, musicological, and astro-
nomical speculations related to them. With regard
to the third question Plutarch rejects all the astro-
nomical interpretations that he reports in chaps.
31-32 and says that the ratios and numbers in this
passage of the Zimaeus are meant to signify the
harmony and concord of the soul itself (chap. 33
[1029 p-r and 1030 B-c]). As to the second question,
which receives the briefest treatment, he accepts
Crantor’s arrangement because he thinks it almost
explicitly prescribed by the order of the numbers in
Plato’s text. The treatment of the first question is
the longest, and in the course of it Plutarch reveals
some of his characteristic weaknesses. He is aware
of the correct contention that Plato is concerned not
with any particular integers but with the ratios that
alone are specified ; and yet he rejects it, ‘‘even if
it be true,’ not only because it makes the matter
harder to understand but also because it would pre-
vent him from indulging himself in the arithmological
speculations about the “ remarkable numbers ’’ to
which he devotes several chapters (1027 v-F and
1017 c—1019 B [chaps. 30 and 11-14]). Then as the
base for the intervals into which the means are
inserted he chooses 192 instead of 384 because “ the
‘ leimma ’ will have its ratio expressed in the numbers
that Plato has given, 256 to 243, if 192 is made the
first number,’ thus arguing with misplaced literalness
as if it were the very numbers and not just the ratio

135

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

that Plato intended and at the same time showing
that he could not have worked out the problem,
since 192 will not serve the purpose of clearing the
fractions after the first fourth (1020 c-p [chap. 16 sub
jinem| and 1022 a [chap. 18 sub finem)).

The originality of the first part of the essay is
emphasized by Plutarch himself. At the very begin-
ning he says that the interpretation here advocated
requires vindication because it is opposed to that of
most Platonists (1012 B), and after criticizing the
interpretations of 72maeus 35 a 1-B 4 by Xenocrates
and Crantor he repeats in beginning his own that he
must vindicate what is unusual and paradoxical about
it (1014). In the first place, he insists that contrary
to what the Platonists contend Plato must have
meant the generation of the universe and its soul to
be understood literally as a beginning, for otherwise
soul could not be senior to body and so there would
be nothing to Plato’s argument against the atheists
in the Laws (chap. 4, cf. chap. 3 zzt.). Plutarch
holds, therefore, that according to Plato god did
literally bring into being the soul and the body of
the universe, though not from nothing, which is
impossible, but from precosmic principles that had
always existed, an amorphous and chaotic corpore-
ality and a self-moved and irrational motivity that
kept the former in disorderly turmoil (chap. 5). This
irrational psychic principle Plutarch identifies with
the “ infinitude ” of the Philebus, the “ congenital
desire ’’ and “ inbred character ”’ of the Polticus, the
“necessity” and even (1024 c) the precosmic
γένεσις Of Timaeus 52 Ὁ and says is openly called in
the Laws “ disorderly and maleficent soul ”’ (1014 p—
1015 a [chap. 6]). It is, moreover, this, he maintains,

136

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

that is the principle of evil whereby Plato avoided the
absurdity into which the Stoics later fell, for the evil
in the universe must have a cause and this cause
cannot be god, who is entirely good, or matter, which
is inert and without quality, but must be soul, which
is the cause and principle of motion (1015 a-x [chaps.
6-7}) ; and this irrational soul, “ soul in itself,’”’ it is
that in the Phaedrus is proved to be indestructible
because not subject to generation and not subject
to generation because self-moved, the precosmic
principle from which god by introducing into it
intelligence and reason created the soul of the
universe (chaps. 8-9), as he created its body out of
precosmic matter by removing from this the cause of
its turbulence and introducing into it form and
symmetry (cf. 1015 Ε and 1016 p—1017 a).

The “ creation’ in the Tzmaeus had already been
taken literally by Aristotle and others but so far as is
known not by anyone regarded as a Platonist,* and
no one at all is known to have anticipated Plutarch
in interpreting it with a theory of the cosmic soul
such as his.2 This theory of his, despite all narrow
literalism © and despite his protest against interpret-

@ See note a on 1013 © (chap. 4 init.) infra.

» Plutarch’s claim to the originality of his interpretation
was accepted by Thévenaz (L’ Ame du Monde, pp. 55-56),
and Helmer argued that there is no reason to doubt it (De
An. Proc., pp. 69-70), though Plutarch’s “ general lack of
originality ’» made Rh. M. Jones doubt that he could have
been the author of the theory (Platonism of Plutarch, p. 80).

¢ Such as the assumption that ἰδέα in the Posidonian in-
terpretation must mean “idea” (see 1023 B-c [chap. 22]
with note ὁ on 1023 8) and the crucial assumption that
πρεσβυτέρα used of soul must mean senior in the sense of
earlier in origin (see 1013 Ἐ-Ρ [chap. 4] and 1016 a-s {chap.
8}), concerning which ef. Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of

137

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

ing Plato for the promotion of one’s own doctrines
(1013 8), was not the consequence of his literal
interpretation of the Timaeus but was the formulation
of his own theology and theodicy, which, to be
plausibly represented as in his words “ something
that agrees with Plato,” required the “ creation ”’ in
the Timaeus to be taken literally. This is indicated
by the very reasons that he here gives for adopting
this interpretation (1013 E-F and 1015 a-£) 4 and even
more clearly by his way of manipulating Platonic
texts to support it. Not only is there nothing in those
texts to justify him in identifying with soul, as he
does here, the “ infinitude ” of the Philebus or the
“ necessity ἡ or γένεσις of the Timaeus, but these
identifications are incompatible even with what he
says in other passages himself.2 When he identifies

Plato ..., pp. 424-426 and note 365 on pp. 429-431 and
EK. de Strycker in Aristotle and Plato in the Mid-Fourth
Century, ed. I. Diiring and G. E. L. Owen (Géteborg, 1960),
pp. 90-91. F. Romano is mistaken, however, in supposing
that Plutarch’s interpretation was simply the consequence of
his “‘ cieco 6 pedissequo ossequio al verbo di Platone,”’ which
made him incapable of distinguishing logos from mythos
(Sophia, xxxiii [1965], p. 119 sub finem).

« Cf. Zeller, Phil. Griech. 111, 2, p. 191; Andresen, Logos
und Nomos, pp. 281, 284, and 290; H. Dérrie, Philomathes :
Studies . . . in Memory of Philip Merlan (The Hague,
1971), p. 46; and especially Babut, Plutarque et le Stoicisme,
p. 287, who considers this essay to be primarily a polemic
against Stoic monism and a continuation of Plutarch’s anti-
Stoic works (op. cit., pp. 139-142).

> For the ἀπειρία of the Philebus see page 185, note d
(chap. 6); for the γένεσις of Timaeus 52 Ὁ see notes ὁ and d
on 1024 c (chap. 24) and the comparison with De Facie
926 F in note a on 1016 F (chap. 9); and for the ἀνάγκη of
the Timaeus see note ¢ on 1014 £ (chap. 6) with Cherniss,
Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato ..., pp. 446-450. As to the

138

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

6

with irrational soul the “ congenital desire” and
“inbred character” in the myth of the Poltcus,
adapting for this a quotation of Politicus 273 B 4-6,
he suppresses Plato’s phrase, τὸ σωματοειδὲς τῆς
συγκράσεως, Which would have embarrassed his in-
terpretation 2; when he insists that in the proof of
Phaedrus 245 c 5—246 a 2 the soul that is not subject
to generation is meant to be only “ the soul that
before the generation of the universe keeps all things
in disorderly motion” (1016 a, 1016 c, 1017 a-B
(chaps. 8-9]), he ignores both the words ψυχὴ πᾶσα
with which that proof begins (Phaedrus 245 c 5) and
of which the conclusion is certainly meant to hold
and the express statement that it is impossible for
the self-moving mover that sustains the universe, 2.e.
the cosmic soul, either to perish or to come to be

last, were ἀνάγκη. aS Plutarch here maintains, the precosmic
irrational soul from which by mixture with νοῦς the soul of
the cosmos was created, his interpretation would be open
to the objection that he opposes to Crantor’s (1013 B-c,
1023 a), for what he calls the psychogony would not be dis-
tinguishable from the cosmogony, since Plato says μεμειγμένη
yap οὖν ἡ τοῦδε TOU κόσμου γένεσις ἐξ ἀνάγκης TE Kai νοῦ συστά-
σεως ἐγεννήθη (Timaeus 47 πὶ 5—48 a 2).

¢ See note f on 1015 a (chap. 6). In this passage he also
substitutes ἀνάγκη for the εἱμαρμένη of the Politicus (see
note 6 on 1015 a); cf. his substitution of σφαῖρα for Plato’s
dopa Or κύκλος (see note f on 1029 c [chap. 32]) and his
insertion of ὕλη into quasi-quotations of the Timaeus (see the
end of note c, page 173 [chap. 3]). Sometimes by omitting
words or curtailing the original he alters the meaning of a
passage (see note c on Plat. Quaest. 1004 & supra), thereby
eliminating what would otherwise impugn his interpretation
(see note d on 1016 F [chap. 9] and notes ἡ, ὁ, and ¢ on 1023
Ἐ-Ε [chap. 23]); and sometimes he inserts into an apparent
quotation what is in fact an erroneous inference of his own
(see note b on Plat. Quaest. 1002 F supra).

139

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(Phaedrus 245 τὶ 7-E 2); and, when he asserts that
by all these Plato meant what in the Las he called
disorderly and maleficent soul and that this is “ soul
in itself,’ which became the soul of the universe
(1014 p-E [chap. 6] and 1015 e[chap. 7]), he disregards
the fact that the evil kind or aspect of soul there
posited is never said to be precosmic or antecedent
to beneficent soul or that out of which a single
cosmic soul was created but to the contrary is repre-
sented as being coeval with the good souls, the
movers of the celestial bodies and the uniy verse, and
distinct from them.

All this is far from literal interpretation of Plato’s
words ; and so is the identification of the ‘ divisible
being ”’ in the psychogony of the T%maeus with the
irrational and maleficent soul elicited from the Laws
(1014 p-E [chap. 6] and 1015 & [chap. 7]). Neither in
the psychogony nor elsewhere in the 7%maeus is
there any mention of such an irrational soul or of
any irrational element in the cosmic soul’; and

: « Cf. Laws 896 pv 10-r 6, 898 « 6-—899 B 9, 904 a 6-c 4

and πὶ 5-7, 906 a 2-7; see Cherniss, Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, xcviii (1954), p. 26, n. 29.
In De Iside 370 F Plutarch himself implies that what he takes
to be the maleficent soul of the Laws is not antecedent to
the beneficent soul but that the two are coeval and distinct,
tor he says that according to Plato there (1.6, Laws 896 » 10-
E 6) the universe is moved by at least two souls, one beneficent
and the other adverse to this.

δ Of. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato ..., p. 446
with notes 386 and 387 and Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, xeviii (1954), Ὁ. 26 with notes 26-28,
The soul that in Timaeus 44 a4 7-8 1 is said to become ἄνους
is only the human soul when disturbed in consequence of its
embodiment (cf. 86 B 2—-87 a 7); even in that soul there
is no irrationality in the ‘“‘ immortal part’? produced by the

140

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

Plutarch’s assertion that this is what Plato meant by
οὐσίας... τῆς av περὶ TA σώματα γιγνομένης μεριστῆς
(Timaeus 35 a 2-3) is made without any supporting
argument? and apparently in reliance upon the mere
assumption that in the Laws the proper name is used
for that to which Plato elsewhere must have been
referring covertly in enigmatic and metaphorical
terms,” a principle so pliable that in the very passage
where it is enunciated this maleficent soul of the
Laws is identified not, as it is in this essay, with the
‘divisible being ’’ but with the “ difference,” the
θάτερον, of the psychogony.°

Identifying the “ divisible being ” of the psycho-
gony with precosmic irrational soul from which god
by introducing into it intelligence and reason created
the soul of the universe ought to imply moreover
that the “ indivisible being ” there is νοῦς ; and Plu-
tarch does explicitly make this identification also,?

demiurge, the circles of sameness and difference, when not so
disturbed (44 B 1-7), while the “ mortal and passible part ”’
of it (.e. the θυμοειδές and ἐπιθυμία). which Plutarch derives
froin the ‘ divisible being,’ > is in the Timaeus a confection
of the “ὁ created gods’ and is unrelated to the ingredients
or the result of the psychogony (see note ¢ on 1026 pb [chap.
27 sub finem)).

« The later attempts to account for the term μεριστή j (1024 4
[chap. 23] and 1024 c [chap. 24]) are not arguments in sup-
port of this identification and would not be cogent if they
were intended to be so.

ὑ Cf. 1014 ν (. . . ἐν δὲ τοῖς Νόμοις ἄντικρυς oe + εἴρηκε
.) with De Iside 370 E-F (πολλαχοῦ μὲν ΠΟ ae παρα-
TNE 4 ἐν ἐν δὲ τοῖς Νόμοις . - - οὐ δι᾽ αἰνιγμῶν οὐδὲ

συμβολικῶς ἀλλὰ κυρίοις ὀνόμασιν. . .
¢ De Iside 370 Ἐ-Ὲ ; see page 251, note eon 1025 νυ infra.
¢ See infra 1014 v-£ (ἐν δὲ Seay τὴν τῇ ἀμερίστῳ συγκε-
ραννυμένην . . . αὕτη. ++ νοῦ . . . μετέσχεν, ἵνα κόσμου ψυχὴ

141

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

although in the Zimaeus not only is there no men-
tion of precosmic νοῦς as an ingredient in the
constitution of soul but in a passage from which Plu-
tarch conveniently omits νοῦς 5 the latter is said to
arise in the soul after its constitution and organiza-
tion and as a result of its contact with the ideas.
Plutarch’s one attempt to justify his identification is
an explication of the sense in which the terms ἀμερὲς
Kal ἀμέριστον are used; but in this sense even
according to him they characterize the incorporeal
and intelligible as such, and so they are in fact more
appropriately used of the being of the ideas and can
be supposed to refer to νοῦς only because he takes
νοῦς to be a νοητόν." Since for him it is god, how-
ever, the νοητόν par excellence® and the only true
being,? that is vois,* although in arguing against the
Posidonians he contends that god’s relation to soul
is that of artificer to finished product (1023 c infra),
he nevertheless asserts that the νοῦς introduced by

yévnra.), 1016 c with note c, 1024 4 (page 229, note d), 1024 c-p
(ὁ δὲ νοῦς . . - ἐγγενόμενος δὲ τῇ ψυχῇ - - - ἡ κοινωνία γέγονεν
αὐτῶν, τῷ ἀμερίστῳ τὸ μεριστὸν ...) with note c there for an
additional misrepresentation of the Platonic text.

α Timaeus 37 c 1-3; see infra 1023 ¥F with note c there.

» See infra page 214, note α and the references there to
Plat. Quaest, 1002 c-p and 1002 rE.

¢ See infra 1016 B with note ὦ and the reference there to
Plat. Quaest. 1002 B; and cf. De Istde 372 a, where Osiris
is the οὐσία νοητή of which the sun is the visible light.

4 Cf. De E 392 a (... μόνην μόνῳ προσήκουσαν τὴν τοῦ εἶναι
προσαγόρευσιν . - -) and 393 a-s.

e Cf. De Iside 371 a (in the soul of the universe Osiris is
νοῦς καὶ λόγος). 373 B (Osiris is λόγος αὐτὸς καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἀμιγὴς
καὶ ἀπαθής). and 376 ὁ (ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ νοῦς καὶ λόγος ἐν τῷ ἀοράτῳ
καὶ ἀφανεῖ βεβηκὼς εἰς γένεσιν ὑπὸ κινήσεως προῆλθεν).

142

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

god into the irrational soul is itself a part of god? ;
and so he implicitly makes the “ indivisible being ”
of the Zimaeus substantially identical with the
demiurge, which is itself to renounce the literal
interpretation of Plato’s text. Moreover, in 1024
c-p (chap. 24), where of the three, ov and ywpa and
γένεσις, Said in Timaeus 52 Ὁ 2-4 to have been
before heaven came to be, Plutarch identifies the
last with the irrational soul, the second with matter,
and the first with the intelligible, the real existence
that always remains fixed and of which semblances
are dispersed in this world, he introduces without
explanation or reference to the text that he has
quoted a νοῦς which was “ abiding and immobile all
by itself ’ before it got into the soul ; and this νοῦς
he explicitly identifies with the “ indivisible being ”
of the psychogony. This must be the vods that is
substantially identical with god, added as a fourth
to the precosmic three of Timaeus 52 Ὁ 2-4, for it
cannot be identical with the ὄν, which Plutarch him-
self here clearly—and correctly (cf. Timaeus 52 a 1-4
and c ὅ- 1 with 48 κΕ 5-6)—treats as the being of
the ideas, the stable and real existence with which,
as he says, the circular motion of the soul made
rational is most closely in contact; but this is to
make Plato omit from the three that he lists as pre-
cosmic the “indivisible being” which he clearly
treats as such in the psychogony and which must be the
ὄν among the three that he here lists, not a fourth
such as that gratuitously introduced by Plutarch.

* See infra 1016 c with note d and Plat. Quaest. 1001 ς
referred to there.

> See 1016 c, Plat. Quaest. 1001 c, and the passages of the
De Iside, which are cited in the last two preceding notes.

143

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

That the “ indivisible being ” of the psychogony
is the being of the ideas and the “ divisible being ”
the dispersed being of phenomena, not νοῦς and the
irrational soul, as Plutarch insists, and not ingredients
of soul but external to soul, which after it has been
constituted judges them by coming into contact now
with the one and again with the other, this is clear
from another passage of the T%tmaeus, which is
partially paraphrased and partially quoted by
Plutarch himself but for his own purpose and in a
mutilated form that obscures its significance. At
the beginning of this passage which he omits (77-
maeus 37 a 2-4) it is emphasized that the ingre-
dients of soul were three. This was twice said in the
passage of the psychogony (Timaeus 35 a 6-7 and B 1)
quoted by him at the beginning of his essay (1012
B-c infra), where it was explained that of these three
ingredients one is a “ third kind of being ” blended
by the demiurge between the “ indivisible being ”
and the “ divisible being ” and the other two are a
_ sameness and a difference also constructed between
the indivisible and the divisible sameness and
difference. This intermediacy of the ingredients
sameness and difference eluded Plutarch altogether,

@ Timaeus 37 a 2-—c 5, where in 37 «a 5-8 8 the soul of the
universe is said now to touch something that has οὐσία
σκεδαστή, ἐ.6. μεριστή (cf. Plotinus, Hnn. tv, ii, 1, line 12
and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 298, 24-25 [Diehl]),
which is one of τὰ γιγνόμενα, 1.6. the perceptible of 37 5 6,
and now something that has οὐσία ἀμέριστος. which is one of
τὰ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχοντα ἀεί, 1.6. the rational of 37 ¢ 1 (cf.
Proclus, 7bid., p. 300, 5-10 and 17-19 [Dieh!] and Cherniss,
-tristotle’s Criticism of Plato ..., pp. 407-408); for Plu-
tarch’s paraphrase of 37 a ὅ- 3 and quotation of 37 B 3-
c 5 see infra pages 225, note f and 227, notes ὁ and ὡς.

144

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

as it has eluded many modern interpreters ; and
that of the “ third kind of being ”’ he misinterpreted
by neglecting the statement that this is only one
ingredient of soul and by taking it to be the literal
mixture of “ indivisible ’’ and “ divisible being ’’ 4
identified with νοῦς and the irrational soul, with the
result that in fact he made the soul of the universe a
mixture of these two ingredients alone” or again a

be The i blending yi (συνεκεράσατο [1 μασι a ἂὶ 9}) οἵ
the * third kind of being ” like the construction of the inter-
mediate sameness and difference (κατὰ ταὐτὰ συνέστησεν
[35 a 5]) is a figurative expression for the construction of a
mean between two extremes (cf. Porphyry in Proclus, /n
Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 162, 31-163, 1 [Diehl] and Proclus,
ihid,, ii, pp. 149, 14-150, 24 and p. 156, 16-24 [Diehl] ;
Themistius, De 4nima, p. 11, 1-4; Simplicius, De -fnima,
p. 259, 11-29; [Philoponus], De .{nima iii [i.e. Stephanus],
p. 504, 8-12). The figure is used by Plutarch himself when
he says that means involve τὴν τῶν ἄκρων ..- πρὸς ἄλληλα διὰ
τοῦ λόγου σύγκρασιν (Plat. Quaest. 1009 a-B); and yet,
when he uses as a “ likeness of the proportion ’”’ in the
psychogony the insertion of two means between extremes
in 7imaeus 31 B 4—32 c 4, he makes of the mathematical
procedure in that passage a physical “ fusion ” and employs
in his résumé of it the words ἐκέρασεν and συνέμιξε, which
Plato there does not use in any form (see infra 1025 a-1
[chap. 25] with note f there).

δ See 1014 Ἑ (chap. 6): αὕτη yap ἦν ψυχὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν, vod
dé... μετέσχεν, ἵνα κόσμου ψυχὴ γένηται ἃπα 1024 4 (chap. 29) :

. κόσμου ψυχὴν συνίστησιν ἐξ ὑποκειμένων τῆς τε κρείττονος
οὐσίας καὶ ἀμερίστου καὶ τῆς χείρονος, ἣν περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστὴν
κέκληκεν. .-. A striking modern parallel is provided ee ES
l’riedlander (Plato iii [Princeton University Press, 1969], p.
366), who without reference to Plutarch and despite his biblio-
graphy (pp. 543-544) in obvious ignorance of the correct
construction of 7imaeus 35 a 1- 4 says: “ The ingredients
... are, first, the being that is indivisible . . . and second,
the being that is divisible. . . . That would be enough, but
in order to emphasize the difficulty of the mixture... he

145

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

blend of four ingredients when to account for the
obvious presence of sameness and difference in the
psychogony he took these to be two extremes with
the “ indivisible being ”’ and the “ divisible ᾿᾿ as two
intermediates between them.* Plato’s emphatic
warning that the ingredients of soul are three he
simply disregarded.

Similar treatment of Plato’s text and similar
internal contradictions characterize Plutarch’s literal
interpretation of the generation of the physical
universe. A single example will suffice. Timaeus
begins his account of the creation by saying in a
passage on which Plutarch lays much stress that god
took over all that was visible ® but later says that he
constructed the world visible and tangible.* Instead
of explaining how these two statements can both be

adds as a third component the mixture of the previous two—
or, as it may be put differently (35 a 3-4), the mixture of
‘the same ’ and ‘ the different.’ ”’

4 See 1025 s (chap. 25, where the proportion of four terms
in Timaeus 32 B 3-7 is expressly cited as parallel to this)
and note 6 there with references. It is the “‘ divisible being "ἢ
itself that Plutarch elsewhere calls intermediate, transferring
to it, which identified with irrational soul or ‘‘ soul in itself ”’
he makes an ingredient of *‘ created soul,’”’ the intermediacy
of the three ingredients in the psychogony (see 1015 5
[chap. 6] with note c, 1024 B [chap. 23] with note d, and
1024 c [chap. 24] with note d), two of which, sameness and
difference, his interpretation fits so ill that in trying to explain
them he flagrantly contradicts himself (see 1024 p [chap, 24]
with note f, 1025 a [chap. 24] with note b, and 1027 a
[chap. 28] with note a).

> Timaeus 30 a 3-4 (πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν .. «) 3
see infra 1016 p with note g.

ὁ Timaeus 32 B 7-8 (. . . συνεστήσατο οὐρανὸν ὁρατὸν καὶ
ἁπτόν) : cf. 36 πὶ 5-6,

146

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

taken literally? Plutarch simply omits “ visible and
tangible ᾿᾿ from his quotation of the latter passage,”
for he maintains that god did not create the tangi-
bility of the matter out of which he formed the
physical universe but that this was perceptible and
corporeal’; and yet elsewhere he insists that
Platonic “‘ matter ” is entirely without quality and
becomes tangible and visible by participating in the
intelligible and simulating it.4

So Plutarch’s interpretation upon closer inspection
proves to be far from “ literal.’’ His motive was not
strict fidelity to Plato’s words but concern to enlist
Plato’s authority for the proposition that the universe
was brought into being by god; and, since he says
himself why he thought it necessary to insist upon
such a beginning of the universe, the course of his
reasoning can be plausibly explicated in the following
manner. Soul as such must have existed without
beginning, for, as Plato says himself, soul is self-
moving motion, which itself is not subject to genera-
tion or destruction. This soul cannot be the soul of
the universe, however, for, if it were, it would without
beginning have always been producing in body the
motions of the corporeal universe just as they are
now organized by the soul of the universe ¢ ; and this

α For the bearing of the contradiction on the question
whether the creation was meant to be taken literally cf.
L. Taran in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy edited by
J. P. Anton with G. L. Kustas (Albany, State Univ. of New
York Press, 1971), pp. 382-384 with notes 98-104.

δ See infra 1016 F with note d.

¢ See infra pages 183, note d; 185, note c; 229, note 7.

@ See infra 1014 F with note ὁ and 1013 c with note d.

¢ See infra 1030 c (chap. 33 sub finem), and Plat. Quaest.
1003 a-B.

147

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

corporeal universe, if it had been so organized always
and without beginning, would be coeval with soul, in
which case there would be neither cogent evidence
for the existence of god (see infra 1013 E-F) nor any
need of his existence.¢ Therefore the existence of
god requires that the soul of the universe have had
a beginning antecedent to that of the corporeal uni-
verse organized by it. This beginning, however,
could not have been a coming to be from what was
not soul, since as soul it is without beginning, and so
could have been only a change in preexisting soul
such as would account for the regular motions of an
ordered corporeal universe, 2.6. a change in self-
motion from the disorderly or demented to the
orderly and rational, which must have been caused
by the introduction of νοῦς into the soul already
existing. Therefore Plato, despite what he seems to
say in the Zimaeus, must have meant not that the
demiurge created the substance of soul but that he
compounded the soul of the universe by blending
νοῦς with irrational soul, the vestigial irrationality of
which is the cause of the evil in the universe as the
rationality imposed upon it by god is the cause of
the good®; and consequently the essential in-
gredients in the psychogony must be these two, both

¢ According to Atticus, who adopted Plutarch’s interpreta-
tion (see note a on 1013 τ infra), Plato, reasoning that what
has not come to be needs no creator or guardian for its well-
being, ἵνα μὴ ἀποστερήσῃ τὸν κόσμον τῆς προνοίας ἀφεῖλε τὸ
ἀγένητον cone (hatiettes Sisley iv ‘Bande Μι ταν τὴν tre
Evang. xv, 6, 2 {ii, p. 359, 14-18, Mras]) : and Plutarch is said
to have called the divine cause πρόνοια (Proclus, In Platonis
Timaeum i, Ὁ. 415, 18-20 [Diehl]; see Plat. Quaest. 1007 ¢
with note ἢ there).

δ See infra 1026 Ὁ-Ὲ (chap. 27) and 1027 a (chap. 98).
148

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

preexisting and without beginning, νοῦς and the
self-motion that is soul in itself.

This interpretation has won for Plutarch the praise
of some modern scholars for acuteness and ingenuity
and even for “ fathoming the thought of Plato better
than did Plato’s immediate disciples.’’? In fact, it
is instructive chiefly because it shows how Plutarch
could manipulate for his own purpose philosophical
texts still available for comparison with his treatment
of them and what arbitrariness and contradictions are
involved in an attempt to prove Platonic the dogma
of “‘ creation ᾿᾿ as an historical beginning.

A Latin translation of the essay made by Turnebus
was published in 1552. The first edition of the
Greek text restored to its original order was pub-
lished in 1848 by A. D. Maurommates*¢; and in
1873 B. Miller, who in 1870 had independently

α So Thévenaz, L’ Ame du Monde, p. 95. Helmer (De An.
Proc., p. 66) says that Plutarch’s ‘* Scharfsinn ” can seldom
be refused recognition. R. Del Re tries to defend Plutarch’s
interpretation even in the crucial and embarrassing matter
of the ‘‘ divisible being” (Studi Italiani di Filologia
Classica, N.S. xxiv [1949], pp. 51-64 [”.b. pp. 56-57]) ; and
J. B. Skemp, while taking the “ἡ analytic’ view of the
Timaeus ... as at any rate the more probable,” nevertheless
treats Plutarch’s interpretation very seriously (The Theory
of Motion in Plato’s Later Dialogues, Enlarged Edition
[Amsterdam, 1967], pp. x, xiv, 26-27, 59, 76, 111-112, and
149).

> Plutarchi Chaeronei De Procreatione Animi in Timaeo
Platonis Adriano Turnebo interprete. Parisiis, Ex officina
Adriani Turnebi Typographi Regis. M.D. LII.

© Τ]λουτάρχου περὶ τῆς ἐν Τιμαίῳ ψυχογονίας, ἐκδόντος καὶ εἰς
τὴν ἀρχαίαν συνέχειαν ἀποκαταστήσαντος ᾿Ανδρέου A. Μαυρομ-
μάτου Κορκυραίου, Ἔν ᾿Αθήναις. 1848. The text, based chiefly
on that of Diibner, is preceded by an essay on the restoration
of the proper order and followed by ten pages of notes.

149

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

discovered this order, published another edition of
it. There are two monographs devoted entirely to
the essay. One of them by Joseph Helmer is entitled
Zu Plutarchs ‘* De animae procreatione in Timaeo”’ :
Ein Beitrag zum Verstdindms des Platon-Deuters
Plutarch (Wiirzburg, 1937 [Diss. Miinchen]). The
other by Pierre Thévenaz, L’Ame du Monde, le
Devenir et la Matiéere chez Plutarque (Paris, 1938), is a
systematic study preceded by an annotated trans-
lation into French of the first part of the essay, 2.e.
chaps. 1-10 (1012 B—1017 c) and 21-28 (1022 E—
1027 a). There are two earlier monograplis of wider
range in which the study of this essay is an important
part, Plutarcht Chaeronensis studia in Platone ex-
plicando posita by Herbert Holtorf (Stralesundiae,
1913 [Diss. Greifswald]) and The Platonism of
Plutarch by Roger M. Jones (Menasha, 1916 [ Diss.
Chicago]). Unfortunately none of these four authors
was aware of the correct construction of Tzmaeus
35 a 1-8 1, first pointed out in modern times ap-
parently by G. M. A. Grube (Class. Phil., xxvii
᾿ς [1932], pp. 80-82), the crucial passage with which
Plutarch begins his exposition.

The De Animae Procreatione in Timaeo is No. 65 in
the Catalogue of Lamprias and No. 77 in the Planu-
dean order. The text of it here printed is based
upon E Be uf mr? Escor. 72, all of which have been

α Plutarch iiber die Seelenschépfung im Timaeus, von
Berthold Miiller, Breslau, 1873 (Gymnasium zu St. Elisabet.
Bericht iiber das Schuljahr 1872-1873). The text is based
chiefly on E, and the apparatus reports mainly the readings
of that μ8.. the Epitome, and the Aldine.

> y is Leiden B.P.G. 59 and not Voss. 59 as it is called in

Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, pp. xv1 and xx; cf. Biblio-
theca Universitatis Leidensis : Codices Manuscripti—VIII :

150

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

collated from photostats.? In all these mss. there is
the same displacement of chapters 21-30 (1022 E—
1027 Fr) from their proper place immediately after
chapter 10, a displacement discovered first by A. D.
Maurommates (Π]λουτάρχου περὶ τῆς ἐν Τιμαίῳ
ψυχογονίας ...[Athens, 1848], pp. ιβ΄-ιε) and later
independently by B. Miller (Hermes, iv [1870], pp.
390-403; cf. v [1871], ᾿ 154) and again still later
by P. Tannery (Rev. Etudes Grecques, vii [1804],
pp. 209-211). All these mss., therefore, derive from
one ancestor, but their differences at the junctures
resulting from the displacement show that they were
not all copied from a single archetype and suggest
the division of them into groups that is confirmed by
their variations throughout the essay. At these
junctures E and B are alike; e and u are alike and

Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Graeci descripsit K. A. de
Meyier adiuvante E. Hulshoff Pol (Lugduni Batavorum,
1965), p. 82. For confirmation of this fact as well as for
the correct photostats I am obliged to the generosity of
Dr. de Meyier.

4 I report the readings of Escor. 72 because they seem to
have remained unknown hitherto. From Oxoniensis Coll.
Corp. Christi 99 (C.C.C. 99) I report only one correct reading,
for my collation of this ms. has confirmed the statement
(Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, Ὁ. xv1) that it is close to f, m, r
and especially close to r, with which in fact it agrees against.
all others seventy-six times, though it cannot be their source,
since it disagrees with all of them at least eighteen times, in
five of which it lacks words that they preserve. For Marciani
184, 187, and 523, which I have not collated, cf. B. Miiller
(1873), pp. 3-4 and Hubert-Drexler, op. cit., pp. xv-xvt.

> Here (p. 403, n. 1) Miiller reports that the correct order
had already been indicated in a marginal note made by
Deodat Grihe ; but, since Gréhe published his doctoral dis-
sertation in 1867, his note could scarcely have been made
before Maurommates’ publication.

151

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

different from E, B; f, m, r are substantially alike
and different from both E, B and e, u; and Escor. 72
agrees in part with e, u and in part with f, m, r (see
the critical apparatus on 1022 καὶ following 1017 Ὁ,
chapter 21 mit.). The text of the Aldine at one
juncture is closest to that of e, u and at the other
two agrees with that of m, r.

B agrees with E (or with E corrected) against all
the other mss. more than eighty times, indicating
lacunae where all the others show none but instead
have words or letters missing from E and B (ef.
1015 οἰ rod... θέντος], 1015 ἢ [ws .. . τὴν], 1024 E
[τῶν . . . ἐπικρατεῖ])), omitting words that all the
others preserve (cf. 1014 a [περὶ τούτων], 1025 B
[ἀλλὰ], 1018 B [ὧν]), and preserving words omitted
by all the others (cf. 1027 c [καὶ τριπλασίοις], 1018 A
[καὶ ποιοῦσαι .. .|). B alone or in agreement with
others differs from E in forty-nine places; but the
negligence of the scribe of B might be held to
account for many of these differences * and his own
acumen for others,® although he must have been
-~more than acute to have added the καὶ that E and
all the others omit in διὰ τὸ καὶ τὰς apyas. . . (1025 E).°

α It is difficult to believe that negligence alone can explain
εὐρύθμως for the εὐσήμως of EK (1019 A) or συνήθειαν (unre-
corded in Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, p. 179) for the per-
fectly clear συνήχησιν of E (1021 B).

> e.g. for τῇ ὕλῃ καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνης (1016 Ὁ), where E alone
omits καὶ (unrecorded in Hubert-Drexler, ibid., p. 153), and
for “Apeos (1029 B), where E with all others except f, m, r
has ἀέρος.

¢ One of the eight cases of difference added by D. A.
Russell (Class. Rev., N.S. v [1955], p. 161) to the “ crucial
instance ’’ (p. 170, 9 f. [Hubert-Drexler] =1018 B: ἐν ὅσαις

ἡμέραις [μοίραις]) adduced in Hubert-Drexler, zbzd., p. xvi as
proof that B is independent of E. Of Russell’s seven remain-

152

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

This and the ἣν δὴ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸς of B in 1017 a-s,
where E has τὴν δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ Geos,” look like genuine
variants rather than mere “ slips”’ or arbitrary
emendations ; and so does the καὶ that B alone has
between τῷ ἐπογδόῳ and τῷ ἐπιτρίτῳ in 1022 c
(chapter 19 sub finem), for something is certainly
missing here and the erroneous καὶ may be a mis-
reading by B of some sign to that effect in his original.
There are indications, then, that this essay in B
was not copied directly from E, though it must be
admitted that none of them is tantamount to
definitive proof.

While e and u are frequently in agreement with
f, m, r against E and B® and more frequently in
agreement with E, B against f, m, r,° it is still more

ing cases two (171. 3 and 176. 20, @.e. [ἀφ᾽ [ἐφ᾽ in 1018 B and
ἀντὶ ὄντι in 1020 a) are merely errors in the critical apparatus
of Hubert-Drexler, four others (150. 13, 159. 12, 163. 10,
187. 21 [Hubert-Drexler]) are cases in which the text of B
might be accounted for by the corrections in EK, and the
seventh (156. 8 [Hubert-Drexler]=1022 τ: θήγουσα for
θιγοῦσα) is an error shared by B with τι], a fact not recorded
by Hubert-Drexler, as four other cases of the agreement of
u with B in error against all the others have also gone un-
recorded, though to many these might seem to be more
significant than the “ crucial instance’ of 1018 B where B
neglects two letter-spaces left vacant in E between ὅσαις and
μοίραις.

ἃ ἣν δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς is the reading of e!. Neither this
nor the reading of B is recorded in Hubert-Drexler (ibid.,
p. 154, 26).

ὃ Besides such cases as 1025 B and 1027 c already men-
tioned for the agreement of E and B against all the others
see especially 1018 B (καὶ τὰ ιβ΄) and 1028 A (μονονουχὶ οὖν).

¢ There are more than a score of cases, among which see
τρίτα for ἐπίτριτα and the omission of πρὸς τὰ γ΄ καὶ μ΄ Kai σ΄
in 1021 &.

155

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

common for e and u or for e and u with Escor. 72 to
be in agreement against all the others. Neverthe-
less, e and u are clearly independent of each other,
for they differ from each other in more than sixty
places, in forty of which u is alone in error but in at
least one of which it agrees with f, m, r in correctly
preserving a word that is not in e or in the others
(1017 F [καὶ τοῦ 1B’|), while in several places e pre-
serves words that are lacking in u, most notably a
passage of 21 words that the latter omits (1019 F
[ἐν δὲ τοῖς τριπλασίοις . . . οὕτω γίγνεται μέσος }).
While in agreement with e and u against E and B
at least a dozen times and in five of these with
words that are not in E or B at all,> f, m, and r are
clearly independent of e and u, since in about a
dozen passages all three of them agree in having
words that are absent from both e and u“; but f,
m, and r, although they agree against all the others
in more than sixty places and in more than a score
of these alone preserve the correct text, are them-
selves independent of one another, for besides other
striking differences each of them preserves words
that the other two do not have.¢ Of the three the

* Of the two score cases and more see 1015 D (ὡς οὐκ εὖ
τὴν), 1017 B (see the critical apparatus on μέγα), 1023 E
(λέγειν), 1027 B-c (καὶ ὑπερεχομένην . . . ὑπερέχουσαν omitted by
e, u, Escor, 72).

> See 1014 a, 1018 B (twice), 1025 B, and 1028 a.

¢ Of these the most significant are 1027 B-c (καὶ ὑπερεχο-
μένην . - « ὑπερέχουσαν), 1018 a (see the critical apparatus on
καὶ ποιοῦσαι), 1020 a (καὶ τοῖς τριπλασίοις). and 109] Ἑ (πρὸς
τὰ γ΄ καὶ μ΄ καὶ σ΄). In all these cases the Aldine also lacks the
words preserved by f, m, r.

@ Of the many cases see e.g. 1020 p and 1028 p for words
in f and m that are not inr; 1025 Fr, 1019 p, and 1021 c for

154

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

text of m is most nearly intact and the best by
far.

Escor. 72,5 though it often agrees with f, m, and r
against e and u and more often with e and u against
f, m, and r and in both cases frequently agrees with
E and B, was not copied from any of these mss.
From E and B it differs more than eighty times and
in at least seven of these exhibits in agreement with
e and u or with f, m, and r or with all five of them
words that are absent from both E and B.° So also,
while f, m, and r have words that it lacks,° it pre-
serves words that are missing from them, as it does
others that are missing from e or from u.¢ Although
like f, m, and r more recent than the Aldine, like
them (see page 154, note ὁ supra) it too preserves
words that are lacking in the Aldine,’ from which it

words inmandrthatarenotinf; 1024 a, 1025 p,and 1019 £
for words in f or r that are not in m.

* The contents of this ms. (D-I-12) are of different dates, the
De Animae Procreatione in Timaeo (ff. 75*-87") being of the
16th century according to P. A. Revilla, Catdlogo de los
Cédices Griegos de la Biblioteca de El Escorial 1 (Madrid,
1936), p. 253 and p. 255 (No. 13).

> See 1012 8B, 1014 4, 1015 v, 1024. 5, 1025 B, 1018 B, 1028 a.

¢ There are more than a dozen such cases to testify that
f, m, and r do not derive from Escor. 72; see especially
ard. (καὶ τοῖς τριπλασίοις) and 1021 E (πρὸς τὰ γ΄ καὶ μ΄
καὶ σ΄).

4 There are half a dozen cases of this, the most striking
being 1022 5, where a whole clause is missing from f, m, r ;
in 1025 F it is f alone that omits eleven words, and in 1025 ὁ
f and r that omit ten.

¢ See 1027 νυ (περὶ δὲ τῆς τάξεως) and 1029 a (πέντε τετρα-
χόρδων), and for ualone 1019 F (ἐν δὲ τοῖς τριπλασίοις + « ἃ

Γ See the critical apparatus on 1016 Ἐ (καὶ τὴν), 1017 B
(τεκμήριόν ἐστι μέγα), and 1024 α (καὶ τῆς χείρονος).

155

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

differs in more than thirty passages * and with which
it is alone in agreement against all the other mss.
only twice.2 When it agrees with the Aldine against
other ss., it is usually at the same time in agree-
ment with e and u or at least with e.

The Aldine itself cannot have been taken from E
or B, with both of which it disagrees more than a
hundred times and with neither of which it ever
agrees against all the other mss.° In at least a dozen
places it exhibits words that are in other mss. but
are missing from E; and Β ὦ ; and at 1027 B-c it agrees
exactly with e, u, and Escor. 72 in a mutilated text
entirely different from the text of Τὰ and B, although
other passages prove that it could not have been
taken from e or u either.¢ Nor could it have been

α See 9.5. the critical apparatus on 1016 8B (συνέρξας).
1024 Ἐ (κρίσις), 1018 a (τὰ μὲν yap), 1022 a (ἀναλόγως ἤδη),
1030 c (ἐμμέλειαν).

> See the critical apparatus on 1017 a (ταῦτα δὴ δεῖ) and
1021 π (κατὰ τὸν βαρύτατον). In 1020 ἢ (υπς") Escor. 42 has
ὃ superscript over ς΄, a miscorrection that might have come
from the Aldine (u78’) or from the source of f, m, r (υοδ΄).
There are more than half a dozen cases in which Escor. 72
has been corrected to a reading in which the Aldine and
f, m, r agree.

¢ The nearest it comes to this is at 1029 p where for the
first word in chapter 33 (σκοπεῖτε) it agrees with E, B, and
r against all the others.

4 See ¢.g. the critical apparatus on 1014 α (περὶ rovTwr),
1015 ἢ (ὡς οὐκ εὖ τὴν), 1024 (πλανήτων), 1025 B (ἄδεκτον
οὖσαν ἀλλὰ). 1018 B (ἐπόγδοος ὧν), 1028 a (μονονουχὶ).

e In half a dozen passages it agrees with u alone against
all the other mss. (see especially 1024 Ἑ on κρίσις : κίνησις -U,
Aldine); and yet in 1019 F it preserves twenty-one words
that are not inu(éy δὲ rots tpimAacios...), While in at Jeast
two places it agrees with f, m, rin words that are not ine ΟΥ̓ τὶ
(see 10148 on πρὸ τῆς τοῦ and 1099 c on TH ὑπάτῃ τόνου).
In more than thirty other passages it disagrees with e and u,

156

GENERATION OF THE SOUL

taken from C.C.C. 99, which in many passages lacks
words that it preserves.4

for which e.g. see the critical apparatus on 1023 © (λέγειν),
1025 F (χωρὶς τούτων), 1018 a (τὰ μὲν yap), 1018 B (διὰ τοῦτο
καὶ), 1022 a (ἀναλόγως ἤδη). and 1028 B (τὸν ἝἙ μοῦ).

α To mention none of the other cases, words that the Aldine
preserves and r omits in the following passages are also
wanting in C.C.C. 99: 1017 a, 1017 B, 1020 p, 1022 B, 1025 c¢,
1026 κ, 1028 pb.

157

1012

Β

ΠΕΡῚ ΤΗΣ
EN ΤΙΜΑΙΩΙ ΨΥΧΟΓΌΝΙΑΣ

Ὃ πατὴρ Αὐτοβούλῳ καὶ Πλουτάρχῳ εὖ

πράττειν

> \ \ / > / \ : /

Ἐπεὶ τὰ πολλάκις εἰρημένα καὶ γέγραμμένα
\

σποράδην ev ἑτέροις ἕτερα τὴν IlAatwvos ἐξηγου-

[ “A -
μένοις δόξαν ἣν εἶχεν ὑπὲρ ψυχῆς, ὡς ὑπενοοῦμεν
ἡμεῖς, οἴεσθε δεῖν εἰς ἕν συναχθῆναι καὶ τυχεῖν
40.) 5 3: \ , re > » ’
ἰδίας ἀναγραφῆς τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, οὔτ᾽ ἄλλως εὐ-
μεταχείριστον ὄντα καὶ διὰ τὸ τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν
ἀπὸ IlAatwvos ὑπεναντιοῦσθαι δεόμενον παραμυ-
θίας, προεκθήσομαι τὴν λέξιν ὡς ἐν “Τιμαίῳ γέγρα-
πται. “τῆς ἀμεροῦς" καὶ ἀεὶ κατὰ" ταὐτὰ ἐχούσης
οὐσίας καὶ τῆς αὖ περὶ τὰ σώματα γιγνομένης

1 ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72.
2 ἀμερίστου -Timaeus 35 4 1.
3 καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ κατὰ -e, U, Escor. 72.

α Concerning these two sons of Plutarch’s cf. K. Ziegler,
R.-E. xxi/1 (1951), col. 649, 9-63.

>» Timaeus 35 a 1-8 4. The passage is here translated in
such a way as to make it compatible with the construction
of it implied by Plutarch’s subsequent interpretation. The
correct construction and interpretation of Plato’s text are
given by G. M. A. Grube (Class. Phil., xxvii [1932], pp. 80-
82) and by F. M. Cornford (Plato’s Cosmology, pp. 59-61),
who might have cited in their own support not only Pro-
clus, as they do (cf. especially In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp.

158

ON THE GENERATION OF
THE SOUL IN THE TIMAEUS

To Autobulus and Plutarch α from their Father
nith his Wishes for ther Welfare

1. Since you think that there ought to be a unified
collection of the various statements that 1 have
frequently made and have set down sporadically in
various writings explaining what I supposed to be
the opinion held by Plato concerning the soul and
that a separate treatise ought to be devoted to this
account, as it is both difficult to deal with otherwise
and in need of vindication because of its opposition
to most of the Platonists, I shall make my preface
the passage as it is written in the Timaeus.° “ Of
the indivisible ὁ and ever invariable being and of the

155, 20-156, 24 and p. 162, 6-14 [Diehl]), but also the clear
and concise paraphrases of the passage by Hermias (/n
Platonis Phaedrum, p. 123, 4-12 [Couvreur]) and by Aristi-
des Quintilianus (De Musica iii, 24 =p. 126, 1-7 [Winnington-
Ingram]). Proclus (ibid., pp. 162, 25-163, 3) implies that
Porphyry understood the passage in the same way.

¢ Plato wrote ἀμερίστου here (Timaeus 35 a 1), and Plu-
tarch usually employs that word in referring to this passage
(1012 ©, 1014 p, 1022 © and Fr, 1025 πὶ and £ infra; cf. Plat.
Quaest. 1001 p supra); but a few lines below (Timaeus 35
A δ) Plato himself used ἀμεροῦς in the same sense (cf. The-
aetetus 205 c 2 and p 1-2 with & 2), and in 1022 £ infra
Plutarch remarks τὸ... μονοειδὲς ἀμερὲς εἴρηται Kai ἀμέριστον.

150

(101

2)

C

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

“A ’ > 5 “κ᾿ 9 , ,ὔ
μεριστῆς τρίτον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἐν μέσῳ συνεκεράσατο"
’ > “A ~ 4 a5. a
οὐσίας εἶδος, τῆς τε ταὐτοῦ φύσεως αὖ πέρι καὶ τῆς
δὴν 2 ‘ \ pe ae f 9 !
τοῦ ETEPOV’ και KATA ταῦτα" συνέστησεν EV μέσῳ

A ? 3 A ἢ A a x \

τοῦ T ἀμεροῦς αὐτὴν καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὰ σώματα
~ \
μεριστοῦ. καὶ τρία λαβὼν αὐτὰ ὄντα συνεκερά-
reer , , 107 \ , , ,
Gato εἰς μίαν πάντα ἰδέαν, τὴν θατέρου φύσιν δύσ-
> γ
μικτον οὖσαν εἰς ταὐτὸ" συναρμόττων βίᾳ μιγνὺς
A ~ , ΐ ~
δὲ μετὰ τῆς οὐσίας. καὶ EK τριῶν ποιησάμενος ἕν
πάλιν ὅλον τοῦτο μοίρας εἰς as’ προσῆκε διένειμεν
ἑκάστην δὲ τούτων" ἔκ τε ταὐτοῦ καὶ θατέρου καὶ

Cond / a
τῆς οὐσίας μεμιγμένην: ἤρχετο δὲ διαιρεῖν ὧδε.᾽᾽

aA ~ , A
ταῦτα πρῶτον ὅσας παρέσχηκε Tots ἐξηγουμένοις

1 συνεκεκράσατο -U.

2 τοῦ ἑτέρου -E, B (cf. 1012 εκ infra: τοῦ δὲ ταὐτοῦ Kai τοῦ
ἑτέρου), J'tmaeus 35 a 4-5 (in A, P, W, Y but θατέρου
in F); τοῦ θατέρου -e, u; θατέρου -f, m, r, Escor. 72.
ταὐτὰ -r, Timaeus 35 a 5 (in F but ταῦτα in A, P, W, Y).
αὐτῶν -m, τ, Tumaeus 35 a 6.
συνεκεκράσατο -U.
ταὐτὸν -limaeus 35 a 8.

μοίρας ὅσας -limaeus 35 B 2.
Omitted in Timaeus 35 B 3 by A, P, W, Y.

ono oO ἢ. ὦ

¢ Plato wrote κατὰ ταὐτὰ . .. αὐτῶν ; but instead of the
former Plutarch probably read κατὰ ταῦτα, and instead of
the latter he certainly read αὐτὴν and construed τοῦ τ᾽
ἀμεροῦς . +. καὶ Too... μεριστοῦ aS a genitive of material
with συνέστησεν αὐτήν instead of as governed by ἐν μέσῳ.
for in 1025 B and 1025 r—1026 a infra he says that between
sameness and difference there was placed as a receptacle
for them the mixture of the indivisible and the divisible.
The change of αὐτῶν to αὐτὴν may have been occasioned
by the same desire for an expressed object of συνέστησεν
that led Hackforth (Class. Rev., N.S. vii [1957], p. 197),
while adopting Cornford’s construction of the passage, to

160

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1012

divisible on the other hand that comes to pass in the
case of bodies he blended together out of both a
third kind of being in the middle, and in regard to
the nature of sameness again and that of difference
he also in this way compounded it ¢ in the middle of
the indivisible and what is divisible among bodies.
And he took them, three as they were, and blended
them all together into a single entity,® forcibly fit-
ting into sameness the nature of difference, which
is refractory to mixture, and mixing them together
with being. And, when out of three he had made
one, he again distributed the whole of this into
fractions ὦ that were appropriate and each of these a
blend of sameness and difference and being ; and he
began the division in the following way.” To recount
at present all the dissensions that these words have

propose κατὰ ταῦτα «ταὐτὸ» : but κατὰ ταὐτὰ συνέστησεν
here needs a separately expressed object no more than does
μιγνύς five lines below (T'imaeus 35 8 1) or περί τε ψυχῆς
φύσεως διϊδὼν κατὰ ταὐτά in Phaedrus 277 B 8.

ὃ For Plato’s use of ἰδέα in this sense cf. Theaetetus 18-4
p 3, 203 £ 4, 204 a 1-2, 205 c 1-2, 205 » 53; Parmenides
157 vp 7- 2; Politicus 308 c 6-7 (and with this cf. Timaeus
28 a 8).

¢ As Proclus saw (Jn Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 159, 5-14
[Diehl]), Plato meant simply “ and mixing them (i.e. both
of them) with being ” (cf. Τ᾽ παρ 37 a 2-43; and for this
use of μετά cf. 83 B 5-6, 85 α 5, and Laws 961 p 9-10); but
from 1025 B infra it appears that Plutarch took it to mean
*“and mixing them (i.e. the two of them) together with the
help of being,’ as do ‘Taylor (Commentary on Plato’s
Timaeus, p. 109) and Thévenaz (L’ Ame du Monde, pp. 13,
39, 42).

¢@ The εἰς ds, which here replaces Plato’s ὅσας (cf. Lairs
737 τὶ 3-4 and 756 B 8—-c 1), is in accordance with Plutarch’s
own usage (cf. De Comm. Not. 1081 τῷ infra, De Defectu
Orac. 422 πὶ, Quaest. Conviv. 719 τ).

161

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1012) διαφορὰς ἄπλετον ἔ ἔργον ἐστὶ διελθεῖν ἐν τῷ παρ-
ὄντι, πρὸς δὲ ὑ ὑμᾶς ἐντετυχηκότας' ὁμοῦ (ry? ταῖς
πλείσταις καὶ περιττόν. ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν δοκιμωτάτων
ἀνδρῶν τοὺς μὲν Ξενοκράτης προσηγάγετο, τῆς
ψυχῆς τὴν οὐσίαν ἀριθμὸν αὐτὸν ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ κινού-

3 4 8 ¢€ \ 4 ~ ag
μενον ἀποφηνάμενος," οἱ δὲ Κράντορι τῷ Σολεῖ
προσέθεντο, μιγνύντι τὴν ψυχὴν ἔκ τε τῆς νοητῆς
καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ δοξαστῆς φύσεως, οἶμαί τι
τὴν τούτων ἀνακαλυφθέντων σαφήνειαν ὥσπερ ἐν-
δόσιμον ἡμῖν" παρέξειν.

2. "Ἔστι δὲ βραχὺς ὑπὲρ ἀμφοῖν o° λόγος. οἱ
μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἢ γένεσιν ἀριθμοῦ δηλοῦσθαι νομί-

E ζουσι τῇ μίξει τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ μεριστῆς οὐσίας:
ἀμέριστον μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ ἕν μεριστὸν δὲ τὸ πλῆς-

1 ἐντυχόντας -f, m,

2 «τῷ -added by Hato (De Plutarcho, p. 589, n. 1);
ἐμοῦ ταῖς -τ : ὁμοῦ ταῖς -all other mss.

ἀποφηναμένους -δοογ. 72.
~ms; σωλεῖ -r; σολιεῖ -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72.

δ ἢ Βιο: ἡμῖν sus δι πὴ»; Escor. 72.

6 ὁ -omitted by e, u, Escor. 72.

α Sextus according to the mss. of Adv. Math. i, 301 asserts
that πάντες of Πλάτωνος ἐξηγηταί were silent about the
passage; but cf. W. Theiler’s suggestion (Gnomon, xxviii
[1956], p. 286).

Ὁ Xenocrates, frag. 68 (Heinze [p. 187, 6-8]); cf. Plat.
(uaest. 1007 c supra with note c there and Xenocrates,
frags. 60-61 with Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato

ὁ oy Pi 968; ἢ. S21.

° Crantor, frag. 3 (Kayser)=frag. 3 (Mullach, Frag.
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 140). With the formulation, τῆς νοητῆς
καὶ τῆς . . . δοξαστῆς φύσεως, cf. Plutarch, ddv. Colotem
1114 ὁ: Albinus, Epitome ix, 4 (p. 55, 1-3 [Louis]=p. 164,
1-3 [Hermann]) and Apuleius, De Platone i, 9 (p. 92, 10-15
[Thomas]) referring to Tinaeus 51 Ὁ-Ὲ: Sextus, Adv.
Math. vii, 141 referring to Timaeus 27 pv 6—28 a 4; and

162

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1012

occasioned their interpreters @ is in the first place an
immense task and to do so to you superfluous as
well, as you have read pretty nearly the most of
them. Since, however, of the men most highly
esteemed some were won over by Xenocrates, who
declared the soul’s essence to be number itself being
moved by itself, and others adhered to Crantor of
Soli, who makes the soul a mixture of the intelligible
nature and of the opinable nature of perceptible
things,* I think that the clarification of these two
when exposed will afford us something like a key-
note.4

2. The statement concerning both is concise.¢
The former believe 7 that nothing but the generation
of number is signified by the mixture of the indi-
visible and divisible being, the one being indivisible

see Plato, Republic 534 a 6-7. Crantor, the pupil of Xeno-
crates (Diogenes Laertius, iv, 24), is called by Proclus (Jn
Platonis Timacum i, p. 76, 1-2 [Diehl]) 6 πρῶτος τοῦ Πλά-
τῶνος seen τής.

Cf. De Defectu Orac. 420 Ε and 421 Fr, Quaest. Conviv.
ἐν E; Athenaeus, xiii, 556 ἃ.

¢ The expression suggests that what follows was taken
not directly from Xenocrates and Crantor but from a report
of their interpretations.

7 Xenocrates, frag. 68 (Heinze [p. 187, 11-23]). Cf.
Cherniss, The Riddle, pp. 45-46 and p. 73 and Aristotle's
Criticism of Plato ..., pp. 396-402 ; and Merlan, Platonism
to Neoplatonism, pp. 34-35, who on pp. 45-48 argues that
Xenocrates’ interpretation of Timaeus 35 a 1—B 4 is not “‘ so
thoroughly mistaken ”’ although on p. 13 he had himself
accepted as correct the interpretation given by Cornford
(see note ὁ on 1012 8 supra), whereas it is by neglect of the
latter and consequent misconstruction of Timaeus 35 a 1- 4
that Xenocrates’ interpretation is vindicated by H. J.
Kramer Nort ee p. 328; cf. his Arete, p. 314,
lines 1-3).

163

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

ἃ ~
(1012) Bos ἐκ δὲ τούτων γίγνεσθαι Tov ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ἑνὸς
δ, 4 A \ A. bo / / ?
ὁρίζοντος τὸ πλῆθος Kal TH ἀπειρίᾳ πέρας ἐντιθέν-
1 ἃ \ δ "ἢ ἣν A 5} \ 7 7 ς
TOS, ἣν καὶ δυάδα καλοῦσιν ἀόριστον (καὶ Zapatas ὁ
, / / ~
Πυθαγόρου διδάσκαλος ταύτην μὲν ἐκάλει τοῦ apt-
θμοῦ μητέρα τὸ δὲ ἕν πατέρα" διὸ καὶ βελτίονας
εἶναι τῶν ἀριθμῶν ὅσοι τῇ μονάδι προσεοίκασι),
τοῦτον δὲ μήπω ψυχὴν τὸν ἀριθμὸν" εἶναι: τὸ γὰρ
κινητικὸν καὶ τὸ κινητὸν ἐνδεῖν αὐτῷ. τοῦ δὲ Tad-
1 mss. (cf. 1014 bv infra [ἀπειρίαν .. ἐν αὑτῇ πέρας οὐδὲν
. ἔχουσαν] and 1026 a infra with Quaest. Conviv. 719 τ
[ἀπείρῳ πέρατος ἐγγενομένου] : lamblichus, Theolog. Arith.,
p. 9, 1 [de Falco]) ; ἐπιτιθέντος -Bernardakis.

2 τὸν ἀριθμὸν -deleted as a gloss by Papabasileios (Athena,
x [1898], p. 226).

2 Of. De Defectu Orac. 429 4 (τότε yap ἀριθμὸς γίγνεται
τῶν πληθῶν ἕκαστον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς ὁριζόμενον).

>’ Of. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 153, 19-21 and
23-25 (Diehl) = Numenius, Test. 31 (p. 97 [Leemans]) ; The-
mistius, De Anima, p. 12, 13-27 (cf. Gnomon, xxxi [1959],
pp. 42-43); and for number as the product of the one and
the indefinite dyad see the references in note a on Plat.
Quaest. 1002 a supra (where the terms used are μονάς and
ἡ ἄπειρος δυάς).

ς Plutarch mentions ‘* Zaratas ’’ only here and must have
been unaware that this is just another form of “ Zoroaster ἡ
(cf. Bidez-Cumont, Les Mages Hellénisés i, pp. 36-38), to
whom he refers at 1026 8B infra and for whom he accepted
the date of 5,000 years before the Trojan War (De Iside
369 Ὁ-π : cf. Hermodorus in Diogenes Laertius, i, 2 and
Hermippus in Pliny, Δ᾽. ἢ. xxx, 4). With the first part of
Plutarch’s parenthesis here cf. Hippolytus in Refutatio vi,
23, 2 (p. 149, 29-30 [Wendland]|: καὶ Ζαράτας 6 Πυθαγόρου
διδάσκαλος ἐκάλει τὸ μὲν ἕν πατέρα τὸ δὲ δύο μητέρα), who
for this cites no authority but who in Refutatio i, 2, 12
(p. 7, 2-5 [Wendland]) as his source for a highly con-
taminated account of the doctrine expounded to Pythagoras
by Zaratas cites Aristoxenus (frag. 13 [Wehrli]; οὐ F.
Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. U1 a, pp. 295, 20-298, 14 [ad 273 Fr 94]

164

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1012

and multiplicity divisible and number being the
product of these when the one bounds multiplicity 2
and inserts a limit in infinitude, which they call
indefinite dyad too ὃ (this Zaratas too, the teacher of
Pythagoras, called mother of number ; and the one
he called father,*¢ which is also why he held those
numbers to be better that resemble the monad 4) ;
but they believe that this number is not yet soul,
for it lacks motivity and mobility,’ but that after the

and W. Spoerri, Rev. Htudes Anciennes, lvii [1955], pp. 267-
290 [especially pp. 272-273]) and an otherwise unknown
Diodorus of Eretria. ‘The explanation of this latter name
attempted by J. Bidez (Hos [Bruxelles, 1945], pp. 16-17) is
implausible even on chronological grounds ; and it is more
probable that behind this “ Diodorus ”’ lurks the name of
Eudorus (cf. J. Roeper, Philologus, vii [1852], pp. 532-535),
who is cited by Plutarch at 1013 5, 1019 £, and 1020 ς
infra and who is therefore likely to have been his source
not only for the parenthetical reference to Zaratas here but
also for the summary in which it stands (see note e on 1012 Ὁ
supra and Helmer, De An. Proc., p. 13, n. 18).

4 3,6, the odd numbers (cf. Nicomachus, Arithmetica
Introductio τι, xx, 2 [p. 118, 4-6, Hoche] ; Syrianus, Metaph.,
p- 181, 23-25), which are called male (cf. Plutarch, Quaest.
Romanae 264 a and 288 c-p, De Εἰ 388 κ-8) and “ better ”
(cf. Quaest. Romanae 264 a init.; Demetrius in Proclus,
In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, p. 23, 13-22 [Kroll] ; Aristides
Quintilianus, De Musica iii, 24 [p. 126, 24-27, Winnington-
Ingram]). Plutarch himself speaks of their derivation from
the monad as from “ the better principle ” (De Defectu Orac.
429 5), and Xenocrates seems to have identified with odd-
ness the monad which as male he gave the rank of father
(Xenocrates, frag. 15 [Heinze] and Aristotle, Metaphysics
1084 a 32-37 with 1083 b 28-30; of. A.J.P., Ixviii [1947],
pp. 245-246 in note 86).

¢ Cf. infra τοῦ κινεῖσθαι καὶ κινεῖν (“ὁ of being in motion
and setting in motion ”’) and Aristotle’s objection, De Anima
409 a 3 (et [ἢ] γάρ ἐστι κινητικὴ καὶ κινητή, διαφέρειν δεῖ) with
De Generatione 326 Ὁ 3-5.

165

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1012) τοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου συμμιγέντων, ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστι
κινήσεως ἀρχὴ καὶ μεταβολῆς τὸ δὲ μονῆς, ψυχὴν'
γεγονέναι, μηδὲν ἧττον τοῦ ἱστάναι καὶ ἵστασθαι

Ε δύναμιν ἢ τοῦ κινεῖσθαι καὶ κινεῖν οὖσαν. οἱ δὲ
περὶ τὸν Kpavropa μάλιστα τῆς ψυχῆς ἴδιον ὑπο-
λαμβάνοντες ἔργον εἶναι τὸ" κρίνειν τά τε νοητὰ καὶ
τὰ αἰσθητὰ τάς τε τούτων ἐν αὑτοῖς καὶ πρὸς ἀλ-
ληλα γιγνομένας διαφορὰς καὶ ὁμοιότητας ἐκ πάν-
των paciv, ¢ ἵνα πάντα γιγνώσκῃ, συγκεκρᾶσθαι τὴν

1018 foxy ταῦτα δ᾽ εἶναι τέσσαρα, τὴν νοητὴν φύσιν
1 μονὴν (μόνην -f) ψυχῆς -f, τὰ, r, Escor. 72eorr. (ν and ς

sipensariis over s and »), Aldine.
τὸ -f, m, r; τοῦ -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.

* For difference and sameness as the principles of motion
and rest respectively cf. Aristotle, Physics 201 b 19-21
(= Metaphysics 1066 a 11) and Metaphysics 1084 a 34-35
with Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato . .., note 305
on p. 385 and pp. 11-12, p. 122, p. 443. Aristotle argues
that a self-mover must have an internal principle of motion |
(cf. Cherniss, op. cit., ΡΡ. 389-390) and that soul must be
στατική as well as κινητική (Topics 127 Ὁ 15-16 ; cf. De Anima |

406 b 22-24 with 409 b 7-11); and Xenocrates mistakenly
tried to make soul as self-motion satisfy both these require-
ments (cf. Cherniss, op. cit., note 366 [especially pp. 4392-
433]). In ‘‘ Timaeus Locrus ” 95 r—96 a the sameness and
difference mixed with the blend of indivisible form and
divisible being are called δύο δυνάμιας ἀρχὰς κινασίων without
further specification.

> Crantor, frag. 4 (Kayser)=frag. 4 (Mullach, Frag.
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 140), with the whole of which ef.
Albinus, Epitome xiv, 1-2 (p. 79, 3-14 [Louis]=p. 169, 16-26
{Hermann]). Unlike Xenocrates Crantor did not read into
the psychogony any principle of motion or any identification
of soul with number (Taylor, Commentary on Plato’s
Timaeus, p. 113); and P. Merlan in saying that “ Crantor

‘ interpreted the ‘ tase irl of the Timaeus as said
simply ‘ arithmogony ’ * (Armstrong, Later Greek .

166

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1012-1013

commingling of sameness and difference, the latter of
which is the principle of motion and change while
the former is that of rest,* then the product is soul,
soul being a faculty of bringing to a stop and being
at rest no less than of being in motion and setting in
motion. Crantor and his followers, on the other
hand,° supposing that the soul’s peculiar function is
above all to form judgments of the intelligible and
the perceptible objects* and the differences and
similarities occurring among these objects both
within their own kind and in relation of either kind
to the other,? say that the soul, in order that it may
know all, has been blended together out of all ὁ and

Philosophy, pp. 17-18) erroneously ascribes to him the very
interpretation that he in fact rejected.

ο Cf. Albinus, loc. cit., p. 79, 3 (Louis)=p. 169, 16 (Her-
mann) and Proclus, /n Platonis Timaeum i, p. 254, 29-31
with ii, p. 135, 24-25 (Diehl). This use of κρίνειν is frequent
in Aristotle (e.g. De Anima 427 a 17-21, 428 a 3-5, cf. 432
a 15-16 and 404 Ὁ 25-27); for Plato cf. Republic 523 B 1-2
(ὡς ἱκανῶς ὑπὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως κρινόμενα).

4 That is the difference and similarity (1) of intelligibles
to one another or of perceptibles to one another and (2) of
intelligible and perceptible to each other. Cf. Timaeus
37 a ὅ-Β 3 and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 304,
22-305, 4 (Diehl).

¢ Because “ like is known by like ”’ (cf. Albinus, loc. cit.),
the assumption underlying the psychogony according to
Aristotle (De Anima 404 b 16-18) and later interpreters
generally (cf. Sextus, ddv. Math. i, 303 [ο΄ vii, 92-93 and
116-120]; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 119, 14-120,
11 [Wrobel]=p. 100, 8-22 [Waszink]; Proclus, In Platonis
Timaeum ii, Ὁ. 135, 23-30 and p. 298, 2-31 [Diehl]); but
see Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato ..., pp. 408-411
(with note 339 sub jinem on Crantor) and G. M. Stratton,
Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology before
Aristotle (London/New York, 1917), pp. 156-157 on De
Sensibus 1 (Dox. Graeci, p. 499, 3).

167

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

a Ἁ ψΠ Vy € , Μ \ ἃ ‘
(1013) GEL κατὰ ταῦτα καὶ ὡσαύτως ἐχούσαν καὶ THY περι
τὰ σώματα παθητικὴν' καὶ μεταβλητὴν ἐ ἔτι δὲ τὴν
ταὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου. διὰ τὸ κἀκείνων ἑκατέραν
μετέχειν ἑτερότητος καὶ ταὐτότητος.
ς and A / e ’ὔ »
8. Opards δὲ πάντες οὗτοι χρόνῳ μὲν οἴονται

τὴν ψυχὴν μὴ γεγονέναι μηδ᾽ εἶναι γενητὴν" πλεί-

ονας δὲ δυνάμεις ἔχειν, εἰς ἃς ἀναλύοντα θεωρίας“
ἕνεκα τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς λόγῳ τὸν Πλάτωνα γιγνο-
μένην ὑποτίθεσθαι καὶ συγκεραννυμένην. τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ

1 Mss. (cf. 1023 B infra [τῶν νοητῶν τὸ ἀΐδιον Kai τῶν αἱἰ-
σθητῶν τὸ παθητικόν] and Dox. Graeci, p. 281 a 11 and B 9);
παθητὴν ~-Bernardakis (cf. De EF 392 8 from Eusebius, Praep.
Hivang. xi, 11, 4 [τῶν παθητῶν καὶ μεταβλητῶν)).

2 γεννητὴν 4. m, Aldine. 3 θεωρίαν -rt.

« Plato emphatically stated that the ingredients of the soul
are three (Timaeus 35 A 6-7 and 37 a 2-4).

> Called τῆς περὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ δοξαοτῆς φύσεως in 1012 ἡ
supra (see note ce there) and in 1013 8 infra simply τῆς
αἰσθητῆς οὐσίας. With the expression used here (περὶ τὰ
σώματα may have been taken directly from Timaeus 35 a

2-3, but cf. τῷ περὶ τὰ σώματα πλανητῷ καὶ μεταβλητῷ in
Quaest. Conviv. 718 >) cf. τῶν αἰσθητῶν τὸ παθητικόν in 1023
B-C infra, (φύσεως) οὔσης ἐν πάθεσι παντοδαποῖς Kat μεταβολαῖς
ἀτάκτοις in 1015 £ infra, τὴν δὲ σωματικὴν καὶ παθητικὴν
(φύσιν) in De Defectu Orac. 428 B, and also ddr. Culotem
1115 Ἑ (τῆς ὕλης... πάθη πολλὰ καὶ μεταβολὰς. . δεχομένης)
and 1116p (aitras ais ἐν τῷ πάσχειν Kal werd tees τὸ εἶναι).

¢ Cf. Albinus, loc. cit., Pp. 79, 10- 11 (Louis) =p. 169, 29-J4.
(Hermann) : ἐνὸν ἐπὶ τῶν νοητῶν ταὐτότητά τε Kal ἑἕτερό-
τητα καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μεριστῶν. ..

ὦ Xenocrates, frag. 68 (Heinze (p. 187, 23-27]) and
Crantor, frag. 4 (Kayser [p. 19])=frag. 4 (Mullach, Frag.
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 140).

e Cf. 1017 8 infra (οὐ θεωρίας ἕνεκα) and οὐ τοῦ θεωρῆσαι
ἕνεκεν (Aristotle, Metaphysics 1091 a 28-29; contrast
Speusippus, frag. 46, 17-20 {Lang]), S Saancalin χάριν ὡς
μᾶλλον γνωριζόντων (Aristotle, De Caelo 280 a 1, with Taurus
in Philoponus, De Aeternitate Mundi, p. 187, 1 and p. 224,

168

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1013

that these are four, the intelligible nature, which is
ever invariable and identical, and the passive and
mutable nature of bodies” and furthermore that of
sameness and of difference because each of the
former two also partakes of diversity and identity.°¢
3. All these interpreters are alike in thinking ὦ
that the soul did not come to be in time and is not
subject to generation but that it has a multiplicity of
faculties and that Plato in analysing its essence into
these for the sake of examination’ represents it
verbally as coming to bef and being blended to-

1 [Rabe]; Alexander, ibid., p. 217, 23-24; Simplicius,
De Caelo, p. 304, 4-6; [Alexander], Metaph., p. 819, 38
and p. 820, δ), σαφηνείας χάριν (Theophrastus, Phys. Opin.,
frag. 11 [Dow. Graeci, pp. 485, 18-486, 2], with ‘Taurus in
Philoponus, De Aeternitate Mundi, p. 187, 5 [Rabe] and
Alexander, ibid., p. 216, 13), ἐπὶ τοῦ σαφοῦς χρείᾳ (Atticus
in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. xv, 6, 4=ii, p. 360, 7 [Mras)}),
and various combinations of these expressions in Plotinus
(Enn., tv, ili, 9, lines 14-15), Proclus (dn Platonis Timaeum
i, p. 290, 9-10 [Diehl]), and Philoponus (De Aeternitate
Mundi, p. 186, 14-16 and p. 189, 10-13 [Rabe]). With
εἰς ἃς ἀναλύοντα . . . τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς cf. especially Proclus,
In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 123, 27-124, 10 (Diehl) and
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 97, 5-7 (Wrobel)=pp. 81,
26-82, 1 (Waszink), on which cf. J. H. Waszink, Studien
zum Timaioskommentar des Calcidius i (Leiden, 1964), p. 7,
n. 3. Tor similar language used of the cosmogony ¢f.
Taurus, Porphyry, and Alexander in Philoponus, De
-leternitate Mundi, p. 146, 13-20, pp. 148, 9-23 with 153,
23-154, 5, and pp. 217, 25-218, 10 (Rabe); Plotinus, ἴηι.
tv, iii, 9, lines 15-20; and Simplicius, De Caelo, p. 304, 7-13.

f Cf.*‘ Timaeus Locrus”’ 94c(cap. ii init. [7] ed. W. Marg):
πρὶν ὦν wpavov λόγῳ γενέσθαι . . . with Proclus, In Platonis
Denon ii, p. 101, 1-14 (Diehl); cf. also Plotinus, Hunn.
vI, vii, 35, lines 28-29 (ὁ δὲ λόγος διδάσκων γινόμενα ποιεῖ)
with ELnn. tv, iii, 9, lines 13-15 and viii, 4, lines 40-42 and
in general Hnn. m1, v, 9, lines 24-29 (. . . καὶ of λόγοι Kal
γενέσεις τῶν ἀγεννήτων ποιοῦσι . . .).

169

ep MORALIA

(1013) καὶ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου διανοούμενον ἐπίστασθαι μὲν
ἀίδιον ὅ ὄντα καὶ ἀγένητον' τὸ δὲ ᾧ τρόπῳ συντέ-
Β τακται καὶ διοικεῖται καταμαθεῖν οὐ ῥᾷδιον ὁ ὁρῶντα
aA 7 fo A A
TOUS μήτε γένεσιν αὐτοῦ μήτε" τῶν γενητικῶν" σύν-
οὗον ἐξ ἀρχῆς προῦποθεμένοις" ταύτην τὴν ὁδὸν
τραπέσθαι. τοιούτων δὲ τῶν καθόλου λεγομένων,
ὁ μὲν Εὔδωρος οὐδετέρους ἀμοιρεῖν οἴεται τοῦ εἰ-
/ 5 3 A A ~ ~ / 3 ’
κότος": ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκοῦσι τῆς Πλάτωνος ἀμφότεροι
1 ἀγέννητον -f, m, r, Aldine.
2 μήτε -f, m,r; μηδὲ -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.
3 γεννητικῶν -f, m, r, Aldine.
4 προυποθεμένην -Ὑ. 5 εἰκότως -U.

α Xenocrates, frag. 54 (Heinze [p. 180, 21-26]) and
Crantor, frag. 4 (Kayser [p. 19])=frag. 4 (Mullach, Frag.
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 140); cf. in Xenocrates, frag. 54
(Heinze) and Speusippus, frag. 54 a-b (Lang) Aristotle,
De Caelo 279 a 32—280 a 8 with Simplicius, De Caelo,
pp. 303, 33-304, 15 (ef. [Alexander], Metaph., p. 819, 37-38)
and Scholia in Aristotelem 489 a 4- 12 (Brandis). For
Crantor’s further explanation of γενητόν as meaning not
that the universe had a beginning but that it is dependent
upon an extrinsic cause (frag. 2 [Kayser= Mullach, Frag.
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 139]=Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum

i, p. 277, 8-10 [Diehl]) cf. later Albinus, Epitome xiv, 3
(p. 81, 1-4 [Louis]=p. 169, 26-30 [Hermann]) with Proclus,
In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 219, 2-11 (Diehl); Taurus in
Philoponus, De Aeternitate Mundi, p. 147, 5-9 (Rabe) ;
Plotinus, Hn. 11, ix, 3, lines 12-14 and En. 111, ii, 1, lines
922-96 and vii, 6, lines 52-54; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus,
p. 89, 20-21 (Wrobel)=p. 74, 18-19 (Waszink) ; Simplicius,
Phys., p. 1154, 9-113; and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i,
p. 277, 10-17 (Diehl).

᾿ CH. Taurus in Philoponus, De Aeternitate Mundi, p. 187,
15-16 (Rabe) with Alexander, ibid., p. 216, 13-15; Chal-
cidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 91, 29-92, 3 (Wrobel) =p. hs
8-13 (Waszink) ; Simplicius, De Caelo, p. 304, 6-10.

¢ That is neither Xenocrates in his arithmological explica-
tion of the psychogony nor Crantor in his epistemological
explication of it, the two explications that Plutarch proceeds

170

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1013

gether ; and they think? that with the same thing
in mind concerning the universe too, while he knows
it to be everlasting and ungenerated, yet seeing the
way of its organization and management not to be
easy for those to discern who have not presupposed
its generation and a conjunction of the generative
factors at the beginning,’ this course is the one that
he took. Such being on the whole what they say,
Eudorus thinks that neither party is without all
title to likelihood ὁ ; but to me they both seem to

to say are both wrong. The passage has been misinterpreted
to mean that Eudorus reconciled the interpretation of the
cosmogony by Xenocrates with the “ literal’ interpreta-
tion of it by Crantor (H. Dérrie, Hermes, Ixxix [1944],
pp. 27-28 in his article on Eudorus, ibid., pp. 25-39),
although Plutarch has just asserted that Crantor and
Xenocrates and all their followers alike rejected the “‘ literal ”’
interpretation of both the psychogony and the cosmogony.
He has also ascribed to all of them alike the same explana-
tion of both, θεωρίας ἕνεκα, and has not mentioned Crantor‘s
additional interpretation of γενητόν (see note a on ἢ. 170
supra); and so C. Moreschini must be mistaken in suppos-
ing him to refer to these as the two different explications to
both of which Eudorus gave some title to likelihood (Annali
della Scuola Norm. Sup. di Pisa {Lettere .. .], 2 Ser. xxxiii
[1964], pp. 31-32). For Plutarch’s use of Eudorus in this
essay see note c on 1012 © supra; and for Eudorus himself
besides Dorrie’s article cf. E. Martini, R.-H. vi (1909), cols.
915, 41-916, 66 and G. Luck, Der Akademiker Antiochos
(Bern/Stuttgart, 1953), pp. 27-28. Pap. Oxyrh. 1609 (xiii,
pp. 94-96; cf. Diels-Kranz, Frag. Vorsok.® i, Ὁ. 352, 1-6),
in which the author refers to his own commentary on the
Timaeus, has for this reason been ascribed to Eudorus, who
has recently been proposed as the source of an ever-increasing
number of later texts (cf. P. Boyancé, Rev. Etudes Grecques,
Ixxili [1959], pp. 378-380 and Ixxvi [1963], pp. 85-89, 95,
and 98; M. Giusta, I Dossografi di Etica i [Torino, 1964},
pp. 151 ff.; W. Theiler, Parusia : Festgabe fiir Johannes
Hirschberger [Frankfurt am Main, 1965], pp. 204 ff.).

171

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1013) διαμαρτάνειν δόξης, εἰ κανόνι τῷ πιθανῷ xpy-
στέον οὐκ ἴδια δόγματα περαίνοντας ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνῳ τι
βουλομένους λέγειν ὁμολογούμενον. ἡ μὲν Cyapy®
ἐκ τῆς νοητῆς" καὶ τῆς αἰσθητῆς" οὐσίας λεγομένη

Ἅ ~
μίξις" οὐ διασαφεῖται πῇ ποτε ψυχῆς μᾶλλον 7) τῶν
ἄλλων, ὅ τι ἄν τις εἴπῃ," γένεσίς ἐστιν. αὐτός τε

C γὰρ ὁ κόσμος οὗτος καὶ τῶν μερῶν ἕκαστον συν-

ἕστηκεν ἔκ τε σωματικῆς οὐσίας καὶ νοητῆς, ὧν ἡ
μὲν ὕλην καὶ ὑποκείμενον 7 δὲ" μορφὴν καὶ εἶδος
τῷ γενομένῳ" παρέσχε᾽ καὶ τῆς μὲν ὕλης τὸ per
οχῇ Kal εἰκασίᾳ τοῦ" νοητοῦ μορφωθὲν εὐθὺς ἁπτὸν

1 τῷ -omitted by f, m, r, ul. :

‘ «γὰρ > added by Maurommates (“‘ nam” -Turnebus :
“can * ᾿ Αἰ ή ot

ὃ Marcianus 187°! ; γρῃτικῆς -all other mss.

4 Marcianus 187 ; αἰσθητικῆς -all other mss.

5 μίξης -u. 8 εἴποι -B, r.

7 f, m, r, Escor. 72°F: ; οὕτως -all other Mss.

8 of δὲ -Β. 9 τῶν γενομένων -F. 10 +06 -omitted by u.

@ See 1014 a infra (πιστούμενος τῷ εἰκότι) : and σ΄. De
Defectu Orac. 430 B (. . . πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου διάνοιαν ἐπάγειν τὸ
εἰκός . καὶ, μάδδῇ,: ἘΠ: 728 τὶ (. .. τοῦ δὲ πιθανοῦ καὶ
εἰκότος. - +) with 700 B and contrast " 19 F (. . δόξας ws
ἰθαγενεῖς καὶ ἰδίας. . ἐπήνεσα καὶ τὸ εἰκὸς ἔφην ἔχειν ΕΣ ΜΟῚ
ὃ For τῆς αἰσθητῆς οὐσίας. an abbreviation of the formula-
tions given in 1012 Ὁ and 1013 a supra (see note ὁ there),
cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 154, 1-3 (Diehl) with
Plotinus, Enn. rv, viii, 7 and Simplicius, De Anima, p. 28, 1-2. |
¢ Crantor may not have meant to make the μεριστὴ οὐσία
of Timaeus 35 a 2-3 a constituent part of the soul and
probably did not identify it with corporeal being or matter
(cf. Helmer, De An. Proc., p. 11; Thévenaz, L’ Ame du
Monde, p. 61); but the present refutation assumes that he
did, and the assumption may have been the easier for
Plutarch to make because such an interpretation had
already been adopted by others: it is attributed to Eratos-
thenes by Proclus (Jn Platonis Timaeum ii, Ὁ. 152, 24-27 ;

172

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1013

be utterly mistaken about Plato’s opinion if as a
standard plausibility is to be used, not in promotion
of one’s own doctrines but with the desire to say
something that agrees with Plato. (For), as to what
the one party calls the mixture of the intelligible
and the perceptible being,® it is not made clear how
in the world this is generation of soul rather than of
anything else one may mention, for this universe
itself and each of its parts consist of corporeal and
intelligible being, of which the former provided
matter or substrate and the latter shape or form for
what has come to be,’ and any matter that by
participating in the intelligible and simulating it has
got shape is straightway tangible <and) visible,¢

cf. F. Solmsen, 7.A4.P.A., xxiii [1942], pp. 198 and 202)
and is recorded by Chalcidius (Platonis Timaeus, p. 94, 4-10
{ Wrobel] =p. 79, 9-14 [Waszink]), whose ultimate source for
it is probably pre-Plutarchean (cf. “ Timaeus Locrus ”’
94 a-B). Later (1023 a infra), when against those who
interpret the psychogony as a commingling of corporeal
matter with indivisible being the present refutation of
Crantor is repeated, it is preceded by the argument that
Plato in that passage uses none of the expressions by which
he was accustomed to designate corporeal matter. In fact,
like Aristotle (Physics 209 b 11-13) Plutarch identified with
ὕλη the χώρα or receptacle of the Timaeus (1024 c infra;
ef. 1015 p infra and Quaest. Conviv. 636 Ὁ), confusing this
further with “ precosmic ”’ corporeal chaos (cf. 1014 B-c and
1016 p—1017 a infra; Jones, Platonism of Plutarch, p. 81,
n. 34; Thévenaz, L’Ame du Monde, pp. 110-113); and,
though he apparently knew that Plato had not used ὕλη in
this sense (De Defectu Orac. 414 τ; cf. Chalcidius, Platonis
Timaeus, pp. 304, 4-7 and 336, 8-12 [Wrobel]=pp. 277, 18-
278, 2 and 309, 3-6 [Waszink]), he even went so far as to
insert the term into quasi-quotations of the Timaeus (cf.
1016 v infra and De Defectu Orac. 430 c-p).

4 Cf. Plat. Quaest. 1001 Ὁ-Ὲ supra; and for ἁπτὸν «καὶ»
ὁρατόν cf. Plato, Timaeus 28 5 7-8, 31 B 4, and 32 B 7-8.

173

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1013) (καὶ) ὁρατόν ἐστιν, ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν
ἐκπέφευγεν. ἀριθμόν γε μὴν ὁ Πλάτων οὐδέποτε
τὴν ψυχὴν προσεῖπεν ἀλλὰ κίνησιν αὐτοκίνητον ἀεὶ
καὶ κινήσεως πηγὴν καὶ ἀρχήν' ἀριθμῷ δὲ καὶ
λόγῳ καὶ ἁρμονίᾳ διακεκόσμηκε τὴν οὐσίαν᾽" αὐτῆς
ὑποκειμένην καὶ δεχομένην τὸ κάλλιστον εἶδος ὑπὸ
τούτων ἐγγιγνόμενον. οἶμαι δὲ μὴ ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῷ

D κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν συνεστάναι τὴν. ψυχὴν τὸ τὴν οὐσίαν
αὐτῆς ἀριθμὸν ὑπάρχειν, ἐπεὶ (καὶ καθ᾽ ἁρμο-
νίαν συνέστηκεν ἁρμονία δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐν
τῷ περὶ Ψυχῆς ἀπέδειξεν. ἐκφανῶς δὲ τούτοις
ἠγνόηται τὸ περὶ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου: λέ-
γουσι γὰρ ὡς τὸ μὲν στάσεως τὸ δὲ κινήσεως συμ-
βάλλεται δύναμιν εἰς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς γένεσιν, αὐτοῦ
Πλάτωνος ἐν τῷ Σοφιστῇ τὸ ὃν καὶ τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ
τὸ ἕτερον πρὸς δὲ τούτοις στάσιν καὶ κίνησιν ὡς

1 «καὶ -added by Xylander, implied by versions of
Turnebus and Amyot.
2 διακόσμηκεν οὐσίαν -Ὑ. 3 «καὶ» -added by Hubert.

9 Plato, Laws 898 Ε 1-2 (see Plat. Quaest. 1002 c supra
with note g there) and Timaeus 36 © 5-6 and 46 p 6-7; cf.
Albinus, Epitome xiii, 1 (p. 73, 4-7 [Louis]=p. 168, 6-9
{Hermann)).

> Phaedrus 245 c 9 (πηγὴ καὶ ἀρχὴ κινήσεως). The pre-
ceding κίνησιν αὐτοκίνητον ἀεί is not a quotation but a
formulaic summary of Phaedrus 245 c 7-8 and 245 τ 2-4
influenced by the phraseology of Laws 894 B 9—c 1, 895 B 1-6,
and 895 © 10—896 a 5 (cf. infra 1014 D [αὐτοκίνητον. δὲ καὶ
κινητικὴν ἀρχήν], 1016 a [τῷ δ᾽ αὐτοκινήτῳ πιστουμένη τὸ
ἀγένητον αὐτῆς, 1017 a [δύναμιν αὐτοκίνητον καὶ ἀεικίνητον],
1023 c [ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀεικίνητος), and it does not indicate that
Plutarch knew αὐτοκίνητον as a variant of ή ἀεικίνητον in
Phaedrus 245 c 5 (cf. Lustrum, iv [1959], Ῥ. 137, + 692 and
+ 693). Others also, who certainly read ἀεικίνητον there, say
that in this passage of the Phaedrus soul is defined as τὸ
αὐτοκίνητον (6.5. Hermias, In Platonis Phaedrum, Ὁ. 108,

174

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1013

whereas soul is beyond the range of all sense-per-
ception.? Then as for number, that Plato never
called the soul; but he called it motion perpetually
self-moved and motion’s source and principle.’ By
means of number and ratio and concord he did
arrange its substance © underlying and receiving the
fairest form, which by their agency arises in it ; but
it is not the same, I think, to say that the soul is put
together on a numerical pattern and to say that its
essence is number, since <in fact) it is put together
on the pattern of a concord but is not a concord, as
he himself proved in the work on the Soul.? It is
manifest too that these interpreters ¢ have failed to
understand the part about sameness and difference,
for they say that to the generation of the soul the
former contributes the faculty of rest and the latter
that of motion,’ whereas by Plato himself in the
Sophist 9 existence and sameness and difference and
besides these rest and motion are distinguished and
6-17 and p. 118, 14-16 [Couvreur]; Philoponus, De A eterni-
tate Mundi, p. 271, 18-23 and pp. 246, 27-247, 2 [Rabe]) ;
ef. Fernanda Decleva Caizzi, Acme, xxiii (1970), pp. 91-97.

¢ See 1023 pv infra (. . . τὴν οὐσίαν . .. τῆς ψυχῆς .. .
ταττομένην ὑπ᾽ ἀριθμοῦ). That is the procedure of Timaeus
35 B 4—36 ἡ 7, after which the soul is described as λογισμοῦ
μετέχουσα καὶ ἁρμονίας. .. Kal ava ed ed μερισθεῖσα καὶ
συνδεθεῖσα (36 πὶ 6—37 a 4). With Plutarch’s expression here
cf. infra 1015 E(. . . ἁρμονίᾳ καὶ ἀναλογίᾳ καὶ ἀριθμῷ χρώμενος
ὀργάνοις), 1017 B (διαρμοσάμενος τοῖς προσήκουσιν ἀριθμοῖς καὶ
λόγοις), 1027 a, 1029 Ὁ-Ὲ, and 1080 c.

4 Phaedo 92 a 6—95 a 3. For ἁρμονία, translated as
‘* concord,”’ see note-a on Plat. Quaest. II, 1001 c supra.

¢ XNenocrates and his followers.

7 See 1012 © supra with note a on page 166.

9 Sophist 254 p 4—259 B 7 (especially 255 5 ὅ--Ὲ 2 and

256 c 5—p 4), to which Plutarch refers in De FE 391 8 and
De Defectu Orac. 428 c also.

175

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

¢ ς ’; r t / 4 ‘
(1013) ἕκαστον ἑκάστου διαφέρον καὶ πέντε ὄντα χωρὶς
/ \ /
ἀλλήλων τιθεμένου Kat διορίζοντος.

τ 1 Ἁ e f an \ [4 aA -
4, “Ot γε μὴν οὗτοί τε κοινῇ καὶ ot πλεῖστοι τῶν

,ὔ / , ἷ \ ,
E χρωμένων [Ϊλάτωνι φοβούμενοι καὶ παραλυπού-
μενοι πάντα μηχανῶνται καὶ παραβιάζονται καὶ
στρέφουσιν, ὥς τι δεινὸν καὶ ἄρρητον οἰόμενοι δεῖν
περικαλύπτειν καὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι, τήν τε τοῦ κόσμου
τήν τε τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ γένεσιν καὶ σύστασιν, οὐκ
ἐξ ἀιδίου συνεστώτων" οὐδὲ τὸν ἄπειρον. χρόνον
οὕτως ἐχόντων, ἰδίᾳ τε “λόγου τέτευχε καὶ νῦν ἀρκέ-

“ἜΝ

σει ῥηθὲν ὅτι τὸν περὶ θεῶν ἀγῶνα καὶ λόγον, ᾧ

t

Πλάτων ὁμολογεῖ φιλοτιμότατα Kat παρὰ ἡλικίαν
πρὸς τοὺς ἀθέους κεχρῆσθαι, συγχέουσι μᾶλλον δὲ
ὅλως ἀναιροῦσιν εἰ γὰρ ἀγένητος" ὁ κόσμος

1 3

οὗ -Υ΄. 2 παραμυθούμενοι -Turnebus. συνεστότων -T.
4 φιλοτιμώτατα -Ὑ. 5 avepotow -α. 6. ἀγέννητος -f, m, ΤΥ.
4 According to Proclus (dn Platonis Timaeum i, pp. 276,
31-277, 1 [Diehl]) Plutarch, Atticus, and “ many other
Platonists *? took the cosmogony of the Timaeus literally ;
_ but Plutarch is the earliest of these named either by him
(cf. op. cit., i, pp. 381, 26-382, 12 and for the psychogony
ii, pp. 153, 25-154, 1 [Diehl]) or by Philoponus (De Aeter-
nitate Mundi, p. 211, 10-20 and p. 519, 22-25 [Rabe]), and
his ‘‘ many others’’ are probably later Platonists like
Harpocration (Scholia Cod. Vat. f. 347 in Proclus, Jn
Platonis Rem Publicam ii, p. 377, 15-23 [Kroll]), who was
a pupil of Atticus (cf. Proclus, /n Platonis Timaeum i, Ὁ. 305,
6-7 [Diehl]), the anonymous source of Diogenes Laertius,
iii, 71-72 and 77 (cf. C. Andresen, Logos und Nomos | Berlin,
1955], p. 283), and possibly even Severus with his “* cyclical ”
interpretation (Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, Ὁ. 289, 7-13
and ii, pp. 95, 29-96, I; cf. iii, p. 212, 7-9 [Diehl]) and the
‘‘ eclectic’? Galen (Compendium Timaei Platonis, Ὁ. 39,
11-13 [Kraus-Walzer]). Before Plutarch, however, the
literal interpretation of the Timaeus, on which Aristotle had
insisted (De Caelo 280 a 28-32 and 300 b 16-18, Physics

176

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1018

set apart from one another as being five things
different each from each.

4. In any case, what frightens and embarrasses
these men in common with most of those who study
Plato® so that they manipulate and force and twist
everything in the belief that they must conceal and
deny it as something dreadful and unspeakable is the
generation and composition ὃ of the universe and of
its soul which have not been compounded from ever-
lasting or in their present state for infinite time. To
this a treatise by itself has been devoted ὁ ; and now
it will suffice to state that these people confuse or
rather utterly ruin the reasoning of Plato’s case for
the gods,4 which he admits he made against the
atheists with a zeal extreme and unsuited to his
years. For, if the universe is ungenerated, there is
251 b 17-19, Metaphysics 1071 b 37—1072 a 3) but about
which Theophrastus was uncertain (Phys. Opin., frag. 11
[Dox. Graeci, pp. 485, 17-486, 2]), seems to have been
adopted not only by the Peripatetics generally (cf. Philo-
ponus, De Aeternitate Mundi, p. 135, 9-14 and his quota-
tions from Alexander, ibid., pp. 213, 17-222, 17 [Rabe})
and the Epicureans (cf. Cicero, De Nat. Deorum i, 18-21
[Usener, E'picurea, pp. 245-246]) but also by Cicero (Timaeus
5, p. 159, 2-3 [Plasberg]; cf. Tusc. Disp. i, 63 and 70 and
Acad. Prior. ii, 118) and by Philo Judaeus (De Aeternitate
Mundi 13-16=vi, pp. 76, 16-77, 20 [Cohn-Reiter]), who
like Philoponus later appeals to Aristotle as the decisive
authority for this interpretation.

Ὁ For σύστασιν here cf. Plato, Timaeus 32 c 5-6 and 36
Ὁ 8-9.

¢ Presumably the lost work, No. 66 in the Catalogue of
Lamprias, Wepi τοῦ γεγονέναι κατὰ Πλάτωνα τὸν κόσμον (Vii, p.
474 and frag. xxviii on p. 140 [Bernardakis]).

4 Laws 891 © 4—899 ἢ 4.

¢ A somewhat inexact reminiscence of Laws 907 5 10-Ὁ 5,
on which see E. B. England, The Laws of Plato (Man-
chester, 1921), ii, p. 503.

177

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1013) ἐ ἐστίν, οἴχεται τῷ Πλάτωνι τὸ πρεσβυτέραν' τοῦ
F σώματος τὴν ψυχὴν οὖσαν ἐξάρχειν μεταβολῆς καὶ
κινήσεως πάσης, ἡγεμόνα καὶ πρωτουργόν, ὡς
αὐτὸς cloner, ἐγκαθεστῶσαν. τίς δ᾽ οὖσα καὶ
τίνος ὄντος ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ σώματος προτέρα καὶ πρε-
σβυτέρα λέγεται γεγονέναι, προϊὼν ὁ λόγος ἐνδεί-
ξεται: τοῦτο γὰρ ἠγνοημένον ἔοικε τὴν πλείστην
ge καὶ ἀπιστίαν “παρέχειν τῆς ἀληθοῦς δόξης.
1014 Πρῶτον οὖν ἣν ἔχω περὶ τούτων" διάνοιαν ἐκ-
ΤΟΣ πιστούμενος τῷ εἰκότι καὶ παραμυθού-
μενος, ὡς ἔνεστι, τὸ ἄηθες" τοῦ λόγου καὶ παρά-
dofov- ἔπειτα ταῖς" λέξεσιν ἐπάξω συνοικειῶν ἅμα

τὴν ἐξήγησιν καὶ τὴν ἀπόδειξιν. ἔχει γὰρ οὕτως
κατά γε τὴν ἐμὴν τὰ πράγματα δόξαν. “Ὧ κόσμον
rovoe’’ φησὶν ᾿Ηράκλειτος “(οὔτε τις θεῶν ot?’

1 Hubert (cf. 1013 F infra and 1002 F supra; Timaeus
34 c 4-5; Laws 892 c 6 and 896 c 6); πρεσβύτερον -Μ85.
(of E'pinomis 980 Ὁ 6 and Ε 8).
t τούτων -omitted by Εἰ, B.
: Wet tenbach (after the versions of Turnebus and Amyot);
᾿ ἀληθὲς -Mss. 4 ἔπειτ᾽ αὐταῖς -Bernardakis.

ἅ Laws 896 A 5-c 8 (n.b. 896 B 1: μεταβολῆς τε Kai
κινήσεως ἁπάσης αἰτία ἅπασιν) With 892 a 2—C 6 (cf. in [Plato],
Epinomis 980 ἢ 6-- 8 the reference to “‘ the main point ’’) ;
and see Plat. Quaest. 1002 E-F supra with page 48, note a.

> Cf. infra 1016 sh μΝΝΝ ἡγεμόνα τοῦ παντὸς ἐγκατέστησαν)
and 1017 B(... cen πυ ΜᾺ ἡγεμόνα τοῦ κόσμου . . .). in
both places used of the created soul, 1.6. the soul after it had
been made rational by god. The title is not quoted from
Plato, but cf. Timaeus 41 c 7 (θεῖον λεγόμενον “ἡγεμονοῦν τε)
with Phaedo 80 a 3-9 and 94 c 10-Ὁ 2 and ὡς δεσπότιν in
Timaeus 34 c 5 (quoted in 1016 8 infra).

¢ This is not an exact quotation either but a reminiscence
of Laws 897 a 4, where the soul’s motions are called zpw-
TOUPYOL κινήσεις.

178

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1013-1014

an end of Plato’s contention that the soul, being
senior to the body, initiates all change and motion 4
installed in her position of chief ® and, as he has said
himself, of primary agent. What is meant by soul
and what by body when she is said to have been
prior and senior to it,@ this will be made plain by our
account as it proceeds, for it is the failure to under-
stand this that seems to occasion most of the per-
plexity and incredulity about the true doctrine.

5. First, therefore, I shall set down what I think
about these matters, confirming and vindicating as
far as may be by probability ὁ what is unusual and
paradoxical about my account £ ; and then I shall ap-
ply the interpretation and the demonstration to the
texts, at the same time bringing them into accord
with one another.’ For in my opinion this is the
way matters stand. “ This universe was not made
by anyone either god or man,’ says Heraclitus ἢ

¢ Cf. Timaeus 84 ¢ 4-5 (... καὶ γενέσει καὶ ἀρετῇ προτέραν
Kal πρεσβυτέραν ψυχὴν σώματος .. . συνεστήσατο).

6 See 1013 Β swpra and page 172, note a.

f See 1012 B supra (διὰ τὸ τοῖς πλείστοις . . . ὑπεναντιοῦσθαι
δεόμενον παραμυθίας), and cf. Atticus, frag. vi ἐπέ. (Baudry)
= Eusebius, Praep. Hvang. xv, 6, 3 (ii, pp. 359, 18-360, 4
{Mras}).

9 The object of συνοικειῶν is the texts, ras λέξεις “* under-
stood ” from ταῖς λέξεσιν (cf. Kiithner-Gerth, ii, pp. 575-576),
and not, as Thévenaz has it, the interpretation and the demon-
stration; the reconciliation of apparently incompatible
passages (1016 a and & infra) is itself taken to be an ἀπόδειξις
of Plutarch’s interpretation (1015 F infra [chap. 8 init.]), a
point overlooked by C. Theander in his treatment of this pas-
sage (Plutarch und die Geschichte [Lund, 1951], pp. 42-43).

» Heraclitus, frag. B 30 (D.-K. and Walzer)=frag. 20
(Bywater), quoted more fully by Clement of Alexandria,
Stromata v, xiv, 104, 2; ef. M. Marcovich, R&.-H. Supple-
ment x (1965), cols. 261, 23-37 and 293, 51-66.

179

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1014) ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν," ὥσπερ' φοβηθεὶς μὴ θεοῦ"
ἀπογνόντες ἄνθρωπόν τινα γεγονέναι τοῦ κόσμου
\
δημιουργὸν ὑπονοήσωμεν. βέλτιον οὖν Πλάτωνι
πειθομένους τὸν μὲν κόσμον ὑπὸ θεοῦ γεγονέναι
λέγειν καὶ ἄδειν “ὃ μὲν γὰρ κάλλιστος τῶν γεγο-
Β νότων ὁ δ᾽ ἄριστος τῶν aitiwy’’* τὴν δ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ
ὕλην, ἐξ ἧς γέγονεν, οὐ γενομένην ἀλλὰ ὕποκει-
μένην ἀεὶ τῷ δημιουργῷ εἰς διάθεσιν καὶ τάξιν
αὑτὴν" καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐξομοίωσιν ὡς δυνατὸν ἣν
ἐμπαρασχεῖν." οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἡ γένεσις
ἀλλ᾽’ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ καλῶς μηδὲ ἱκανῶς ἔχοντος, ὡς
οἰκίας καὶ ἱματίου καὶ ἀνδριάντος. ἀκοσμία γὰρ
ἦν τὰ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως, ἀκοσμία δ᾽
9 3 7 9.9 3. ὡνῇ 509 » 3 >
οὐκ ἀσώματος οὐδ᾽ ἀκίνητος οὐδ᾽ ἄψυχος ἀλλ
1 ὡς =I.
2 θεὸν -Benseler (De Hiatu, Ὁ. 528).
3 ὑπονοήσομεν -U.
4 Dibner (from Timaeus 29 4 6) ; αἰτιῶν -MSS.
5 Wyttenbach (after Xylander’s version) ; αὐτῆς -Mss.
of, ΤῸ παρασχεῖν -f, m, r, Escor. 72.
7 τοῦ -omitted by e, u, Escor. 72.

@ Timaeus 29 a 5-6; cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 720 B

(ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῶν αἰτίων ἀριστον).

» The identification, οὐσία καὶ ὕλη, is Stoic according to
Plutarch himself (see De Comm. Not. 1085 r-r infra with
note a on F, and cf. De Amicorum Multitudine 97 a-s) ;
but he so far adopts this terminology as even to use οὐσία
alone for what he considers to be Platonic ὕλη (e.g. De
Defectu Orae. 430 £ [οὐ yap ὁ θεὸς διέστησεν . . . τὴν οὐσίαν
ἀλλὰ . .. αὐτὴν .. . ἔταξε)), for which cf. Diogenes Laertius,
iii, 70 (p. 149, 16-17 [Long]) and Dow. Graeci, p. 447 a 27
(Areius Didymus) in contrast to p. 447 B 22 (Albinus).

¢ See Plat. Quaest. 1001 B supra with note e there.

4 The Platonic source of this is Timaeus 29 © 3—30 a 3
(cf. 1015 5 infra [. . . πάντα βουλόμενος αὑτῷ κατὰ δύναμιν

180

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1014

as if afraid lest by absolving god we get the notion
that some human being had been the artificer of the
universe. It is better, then, to be persuaded by
Plato and, chanting “ for it is the fairest of things
that have come to be and he the best of causes,’’% to
assert that the universe has been brought into being
by god whereas the substance or matter? out of
which it has come into being did not come to be but
was always available to the artificer to whom it
submitted itself for disposing and ordering ὁ and
being made as like to him as was possible,? for the
source of generation is not what is non-existent ¢ but,
as in the case of a house and a garment and a statue,
what is not in good and sufficient condition. In fact,
what preceded the generation of the universe was
disorder, disorder not incorporeal or immobile or

ἐξομοιῶσαι]). For the tendency to take that passage as
identifying the demiurge with the model of the sensible
universe see Plat. Quaest. 1007 c-p supra (εἰκόνες . . . τοῦ
θεοῦ, τῆς μὲν οὐσίας ὁ κόσμος . . .) With page 89, note ὃ: ef.
H. Dorrie, Museum Helveticum, xxvi (1969), pp. 222-223
and Philomathes: Studies ...in Memory of Philip Merlan
(The Hague, 1971), pp. 41-42.

¢ Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 731 Ὁ (τὴν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος
παρανόμως ἐπεισάγουσα γένεσιν τοῖς πράγμασιν) and ddr.
Colotem 1111 a, 1112 a, and 1113 c; for the general
acceptance of the principle cf. Aristotle, Physics 187 a 27-29
and 34-35 and 191 b 13-14 and Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus,
p. 323, 1-2 (Wrobel)=p. 296, 5-6 (Waszink).

f Cf. Dion x, 2 (962 B[... ᾧ τὸ πᾶν ἡγουμένῳ πειθόμενον
ἐξ ἀκοσμίας κόσμος ἐστί]), Quaest. Conviv. 615 F (τὸν μέγαν
θεὸν ὑμεῖς πού φατε τὴν ἀκοσμίαν εὐταξίᾳ μεταβαλεῖν εἰς κόσμον
. ..), and with the rest of this paragraph Plat. Quaest.
1003 a-B supra and Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 95,
18-96, 4 (Wrobel) = pp, 80, 20-81, 7 (Waszink) with J..C. M.
van Winden, Calcidius on Matter? (Leiden, 1965), pp.
256-258.

181

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

ΝΜ \ \ > , \ \ »
(1014) ἄμορφον μὲν καὶ ἀσύστατον τὸ σωματικὸν ἐμ-

\ \ A
πληκτον δὲ καὶ ἄλογον TO κινητικὸν ἔχουσα" τοῦτο

3 “ ) / A b ? / / ¢ \
δ᾽ ἦν ἀναρμοστία ψυχῆς οὐκ ἐχούσης λόγον. ὁ yap

θ \ # A 4 3 ᾽ὔ » A ee

εὸς οὔτε σῶμα TO ἀσώματον οὔτε ψυχὴν TO ἀψυ-
C χον ἐποίησεν. ἀλλὰ ὥσπερ ἁρμονικὸν ἄνδρα καὶ
ῥυθμικὸν' οὐ φωνὴν ποιεῖν οὐδὲ κίνησιν ἐμμελῆ δὲ
φωνὴν καὶ κίνησιν εὔρυθμον ἀξιοῦμεν οὕτως ὁ θεὸς
οὔτε τοῦ σώματος τὸ ἁπτὸν καὶ ἀντίτυπον οὔτε τῆς
ψυχῆς τὸ φανταστικὸν καὶ κινητικὸν αὐτὸς ἐποίη-

> , \ \ > \ er \ \
σεν ἀμφοτέρας δὲ Tas ἀρχὰς παραλαβών, τὴν μὲν
ἀμυδρὰν καὶ σκοτεινὴν τὴν δὲ ταραχώδη καὶ ἀνόη-
τον ἀτελεῖς δὲ" τοῦ προσήκοντος ἀμφοτέρας καὶ

1 ἄνδρα, ῥυθμητικὸν (with n changed to i) -r.
2 δὲ -omitted by r.

«ἴῃ Timaeus 50 Ὁ 7 and 51 a 7 ἄμορφος is used of the
‘* receptacle,’’ whereas dovorarov (used by Plato only in a
different and irrelevant context [Timaeus 61 a 1]) shows
that Plutarch is here referring to the “* precosmic ”’ chaos of
Timaeus 53 a 8—B 4 (see 1016 E-F infra).

> For the expression cf. De Iside 371 B (τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ...
ἄλογον καὶ ἔμπληκτον) ; the motivity is τὴν κινητικὴν τῆς ὕλης
Kat... ἄτακτον καὶ ἄλογον οὐκ ἄψυχον δὲ κίνησιν (1015 Ἑ
infra).

4.6. ψυχὴν τὴν πρὸ τῆς κόσμου γενέσεως πλημμελῶς πάντα
καὶ ἀτάκτως κινοῦσαν (1016 c infra). ἀναρμοστία ψυχῆς is
interpretation of τὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς ἀναρμοστίας πάθος (Plato,
Politicus 273 c 7—p 1), quoted by Plutarch at 1015 p infra;
see also 1017 ὁ (ἐκ τῆς προτέρας ἕξεως ἀναρμόστου καὶ ἀλόγου)
and 1029 & infra (... ἀταξίαν καὶ πλημμέλειαν ἐν ταῖς κινήσεσι
τῆς ἀναρμόστου καὶ ἀνοήτου ψυχῆς .. .ὕ).

4 See 1017 a infra (. .. οὐχὶ σώματος ἁπλῶς οὐδ᾽ ὄγκου καὶ
ὕλης) and De Εἰ 390 ν (σῶμα . .. ἁπτὸν ὄγκον καὶ ἀντίτυπον)
with the definition, σῶμα . . . ὄγκος ἀντίτυπος in [Plutarch],
De Placitis 882 τ'ὶ (Dow. Graeci, p. 310 a 10-11) and Sextus,

182

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1014

inanimate but of corporeality amorphous and in-
coherent ¢ and of motivity demented and irrational,?
and this was the discord of soul that has not reason.°
For god made neither the incorporeal into body nor
the inanimate into soul ; but just as a man skilled in
attunement and rhythm is expected not to create
sound or movement either but to make sound tune-
ful and movement rhythmical so god did not himself
create either the tangibility and resistance of body 4
or the imagination and motivity of soul,’ but he took
over’ both the principles, the former vague and ob-
scure 2 and the latter confused and stupid ἢ and both
of them indefinite and without their appropriate

Adv. Math. i, 21 (p. 603, 12 [Bekker]). From Timaeus
31 B 4-6 taken with 62 c 1-2 it could be inferred that cor-
poreality entails tangibility and tangibility resistance (c/.
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 12, 20-23, p. 13, 2-12,
and p. 17, 13-17 [Diehl]); but the explicit assertion that
ἀντιτυπία is the distinctive property of corporeality as differ-
entiated from the geometrical solid is Epicurean and Stoic
(see page 824, note a on De Comm. Not. 1080 c infra [es-
pecially Sextus, Adv. Math. i, 21 and x, 221-222; S.V.F. ii,
p. 127, 5-11 and p. 162, 29-31]).

¢ See infra 1017 a (. .. τινα φανταστικῆς . . . φορᾶς ..
δύναμιν αὐτοκίνητον Kal ἀεικίνητον) and 1024 a (. .. 7...
φανταστικὴν ...Kiwnow...). Cf. De Sollertia Animalium
960 ἢ (πᾶν τὸ ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικὸν εὐθὺς εἶναι καὶ φανταστικὸν
πέφυκεν) ; and for Pintarch's conception of τὸ φανταστικόν cf.
Quomodo Quis... Sentiat Profectus 83 a-c, De Defectu Orac.
437 ©, and Coriolanus xxxviii, 4 (232 c).

7 παραλαβών is from Timaeus 30 a 3-5 (cf. 68 & 1-3),
cited by Plutarch at 1016 pb infra (see also 1029 Ἑ infra and
De Defectu Orac. 430 πὶ [. . . παραλαβὼν ἔταξε . . .]).

9 Cf. Plotinus, Enn. τι, iv, 10, line 30 (τοῦτο νοεῖ ἀμυδρῶς
ἀμυδρὸν καὶ σκοτεινῶς σκοτεινὸν ...-); in Timaeus 49 a 3-4
χαλεπὸν καὶ ἀμυδρὸν εἶδος refers to the receptacle, χώρα.

λ΄ See infra 1015 Ἐπ (ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνοήτου ταραττομένην αἰτίας)
and 1026 c (ἐμφαίνεται . .. αὐτῆς τῷ μὲν ἀλόγῳ τὸ ταραχῶδες).

183

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1014) ἀορίστους, ἔταξε καὶ διεκόσμησε καὶ συνήρμοσε,
τὸ κάλλιστον ἀπεργασάμενος καὶ τελειότατον ἐξ
αὐτῶν ζῷ ζῷον. ἡ μὲν οὖν σώματος οὐσία τῆς λεγο-
μένης ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ" πανδεχοῦς φύσεως ἕδρας τε καὶ

Ὁ τιθήνης τῶν γενητῶν" οὐχ ἑτέρα τίς ἐστιν Ὁ
6. Τὴν δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν Φιλήβῳ μὲν ἀπειρίαν
κέκληκεν, ἀριθμοῦ καὶ λόγου στέρησιν οὖσαν ἐλλεί-
1K, B; az’ αὐτοῦν- ον u, f, m, r, Escor. 72.

2 γεννητῶν -f, m, τ, Escor. 72.
3 Aldine; ἐστι -Μ58.

α This idiomatic use of ἀτελές with the genitive is so
frequent in Plutarch that its occurrence here is not likely :
to be a reminiscence of the pun in Phaedrus 248 B 4 (ἀτελεῖς
τῆς τοῦ ὄντος θέας) or to have any of the profound signifi-
cance seen in it by Thévenaz (L’ Ame du Monde, p. 18, n. 47).

> Cf. Timaeus, 30 8 4-c 1, 830 Ὁ 13141, 32D 1f, 685
1-6, 69 w 8-c 3, 92 c 5-9; with Plutarch’s συνήρμοσε Cf.
Timaeus 36 ἘΠ ΠΝ ΕΞΈΨΕΤΗ sabia lose

¢ Timaeus 51 a 7 (πανδεχές [cf. 50 5 6: τῆς τὰ πάντα
δεχομένης σώματα φύσεως), 52 Β1 (ἕδραν δὲ παρέχον ὅσα ἔχει

| γένεσιν πᾶσιν). 49 a 5-6 (πάσης εἶναι γενέσεως ὑποδοχὴν αὐτὴν
οἷον τιθήνην). It is to describe the τόϊβ of χώρα, itself incor-
poreal and imperceptible to sense (Timaeus 51 a 4-8 2 and
52 a 8-B 2), that Plato uses these terms; but to Plutarch
they are indifferently designations of ὕλη (see infra 1015 pv,
1023 a, 1024 c; cf. Quaest. Conviv. 636 pv and De Iside
372 «-¥) and, as in this chapter, of corporeality, with which
ὕλη is thus identified (see 1023 a infra: δεξαμενὴν > Je
ἐκείνην [seil. σωματικὴν ὕλην] .. . μᾶλλον δὲ σῶμα . . .) and
which is taken to have existed in precosmic disorder (see
1017 a infra [οὐχὶ σώματος ἁπλῶς . .. ἦν ὁ θεὸς .. .
δημιουργός] : : of. Plat. Quaest. 1003 a supra [... τὸ ἄμορφον
σῶμα. .. 8ἃΠα ἐκ σώματος ἀτάκτου ...], and see page 173,
note ὃ supra). This precosmic matter Plutarch even calls
perceptible (1024 B infra [τὸ αἰσθητὸν . . . ἦν ἄμορφον Kal
dépiorov}), although he had already insisted that Platonic
matter is entirely devoid of quality (1014 r-——1015 ἢ infra)
and had asserted that ὕλη becomes tangible and visible, 1.6.

184

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1014

perfection,* and he ordered and arrayed and fitted
them together, producing from them the living being
supremely fair and perfect.” So the substance of
body is none other than what is called by Plato the
omnirecipient nature, abode and nurse of the things
that are subject to generation.°

6. As for the substance of soul, in the Philebus he
has called it infinitude? as being privation of number

perceptible body, only when shaped by participation in the
intelligible (see 1013 c supra with Plat. Quaest. 1001 pD-r).
When in [Plutarch], De Placitis 882 c (Dow. Graeci, p. 308
A 49 and B 5-9; cf. Theodoret, Graec. Affect. Curatio
iv, 13) the Platonic “ receptacle’ is called ὕλη and char-
acterized as at once corporeal and without quality, it may
be an example of the identification of Platonic “‘ primary
matter’ with the Stoic ἄποιον σῶμα (cf. Simplicius, Phys.,
p. 227, 23-26=S.V.F. ii, frag. 326). Others, however, who
identified the receptacle with ὕλη, asserted that, being
without quality, it is neither corporeal nor incorporeal but
potentially corporeal (Albinus, Epitome viii, 3 [Louis]=
p. 163, 3-7 [Hermann]; Apuleius, De Platone i, 5=p. 87,
10-20 [Thomas]; Hippolytus, Refutatio i, 19, 3=pp. 19,
13-20, 1 [Wendland]; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus,
pp. 342, 16-344, 20 [Wrobel]=pp. 314, 17-316, 13 [Wa-
szink]), an expedient obviously borrowed from Aristotle (De
Generatione 329 a 33; cf. Areius Didymus, E'pitomes Frag.
Phys. 2 [Dox. Graeci, p. 448, 3-12] and “ὁ Ocellus Lucanus ”’
ii, 6 [24]=p. 16, 22-24 [Harder]).

4 This assertion (see 1014 © infra: ἐν δὲ core ie
ἀπειρίαν... TH ψυχῇ) is justified by nothing in the Philebus,
not even by Phitebus 26 B 6-10 (the limitless appetites of
wantonness and vice) or 27 © 1—28 a 4 and 52 c (pleasures
and pains in the class of τὸ ἄπειρον), for the nature of soul
is not in question there and such “ psychic infinitude ’’ is
expressly just one example among many of the ἀπειρία in the
world (cf. Philebus 16 c 9-10, 24 a—25 a, 25c 5-p 1). In
De E 391 b-c the ἄπειρον of the Philebus, though taken to
correspond to the κίνησις of the Sophist, is said by its com-
bination with the πέρας to constitute πᾶσαν γένεσιν.

185

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1014) pecis’ τε καὶ ὑπερβολῆς καὶ διαφορᾶς καὶ ἀνομοιό-
THTOS ἐν αὑτῇ πέρας, οὐδὲν οὐδὲ μέτρον ἔχουσαν"
ἐν δὲ Τιμαίῳ τὴν τῇ ἀμερίστῳ συγκεραννυμένην
φύσει καὶ περὶ τὰ σώματα γίγνεσθαι λεγομένην
μεριστὴν οὔτε πλῆθος ἐν μονάσι καὶ στιγμαῖς οὔτε
μήκη καὶ πλάτη λέγεσθαι νομιστέον, ἃ σώμασι
προσήκει καὶ σωμάτων μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐ ἐστιν,
ἀλλὰ τὴν ἄτακτον καὶ ἀόριστον αὐτοκίνητον δὲ καὶ
κινητικὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκείνην, ἣν πολλαχοῦ μὲν ἀνάγ-

E xynv ἐν δὲ τοῖς Νόμοις ἀντικρυς ψυχὴν ἄτακτον
εἴρηκε καὶ κακοποιόν" αὕτη γὰρ ἣν ψυχὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυ-
τήν, νοῦ δὲ καὶ λογισμοῦ καὶ ἁρμονίας ἔμφρονος
μετέσχεν, ἵνα κόσμου ψυχὴ γένηται. καὶ γὰρ τὸ

1 ἐλλήψεως τὙὉ.

4 Timaeus 35 A 1-3.

” See μεριστὸν δὲ τὸ πλῆθος in the Xenocratean interpreta-
tion (1012 © supra) and in 1023 Ὁ infra ἐκ μονάδων cor-
responding to the preceding μήτε τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς as οὐδὲ
γραμμῶν οὐδ᾽ ἐπιφανειῶν corresponds to the preceding μήτε
τοῖς πέρασι. For καὶ orvypais in a reference to the Xenocratean
interpretation cf. Aristotle, De Anima 409 a 3-7 with
Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato..., p. 396 and n. 322
and W. Theiler, Aristoteles tiber die Seele (Berlin, 1959), :
p. 101 ad 18, 1. |

¢ As in the Posidonian interpretation of chap. 22 infra |
(see in 1023 B δεξάμενοι τὴν τῶν περάτων οὐσίαν περὶ τὰ σώματα
λέγεσθαι μεριστήν and i in 1023 ἢ οὐδὲ γραμμῶν οὐδ᾽ ἐπιφανειῶν
corresponding to μήτε τοῖς πέρασι [see the last note supra}).
For the distinction between the arithmetical and the geo-
metrical interpretations ¢f. Iamblichus in Stobaeus, Eel. i,
49, 32 (pp. 363, 26-364, 12 [Wachsmuth]) and Proclus, Jn
Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 153, 18-25 (Diehl).

aes 2 pi tiiine: In Platonis Timaeum ii, ΡΡ. 153, 2ὅ-1δ4., 1
(Diehl) : . μεριστὴν μὲν οὐσίαν λέγουσι τὴν ἄλογον προοῦσαν
τῆς δονερε . ., Καθάπερ Πλούταρχος καὶ ᾿Αττικός, Distt

ὁ See 1014 εκ infra (τὴν ἐν Τιμαίῳ λεγομένην ἀνάγκην) and

186

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1014

and ratio and having in itself no limit or measure of
deficiency and excess and difference and dissimilitude;
and in the Z2maeus that which is blended together
with the indivisible nature and is said to become
divisible in the case of bodies* must be held to mean
neither multiplicity in the form of units and points ”
nor lengths and breadths,° which are appropriate to
bodies and belong to bodies rather than to soul, but
that disorderly and indeterminate but self-moved
and motive principle which in many places he has
called necessity ὁ but in the Laws has openly called
disorderly and maleficent soul.f This, in fact, was
soul in 1156} ; but it partook of intelligence and rea-
son and rational concord * that it might become the
soul of the universe. For the aforesaid omnireci-

1015 a infra (ὥσπερ ἐν ἸΤολιτικῷ λέγεται... ἀνάγκη . - .)
with the notes there.

In 1015 £ infra Plato is said to have called it ψυχὴν
ἐναντίαν Kal ἀντίπαλον τῇ ἀγαθουργῷ (cf. De Iside 370 F),
which is closer to the terminology of Laws 896 p 5—898 c 8
(especially 896 © 5-6, 897 B 3-4, 897 Ὁ 1, and 898 c 4-5),
the passage that Plutarch has in mind. For his interpreta-
tion of it, which Atticus adopted, cf. Proclus, In Platonis
Timaeum i, p. 382, 2-12 and p. 391, 8-12 (Diehl); cf. also
that of Numenius (p. 94, 6-11 [Leemans]) in Chalcidius,
Platonis Timaeus, p. 326, 12-17 (Wrobel)=p. 299, 14-18
(Waszink). In fact, the passages of the Laws envisage no
such evil ‘* world-soul”’ as Plutarch reads into them and
lend no support to the identification of evil soul or of soul at
all with the “ necessity ’’ or with the “ divisible being ”’ of
the Timaeus (cf. Cherniss, Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, xeviii [1954], p. 26, n. 29; H. Herter,
Rhein. Mus., c [1957], pp. 334-335; H. Gérgemanns, Bei-
trdge zur Interpretation von Platons Nomoi [Miinchen,
1960], p. 200, n. 1).

σ See 1024 a infra: viv οὐχ ἁπλῶς ψυχὴ

Cf. Timaeus 36 © 6—37 a 13 see 1016 3 B ‘infra and Plat.
Quaest. 1001 c with note a and 1003 a supra.

187

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

A ,ὔ Ρ

(1014) πανδεχὲς καὶ ὑλικὸν ἐκεῖνο μέγεθος μὲν ἐκέκτητο
\ , A / 4 \ \ A
καὶ διάστημα καὶ χώραν, κάλλους δὲ Kal μορφῆς
A / > »“". a A
καὶ σχημάτων μετριότητος ἐνδεῶς εἶχεν: ἔλαχε δὲ
τούτων, ἵνα γῆς καὶ θαλάττης καὶ οὐρανοῦ καὶ
ἀστέρων φυτῶν τε καὶ ζῴων παντοδαπὰ σώματα

\ » , 1 / ΕΝ ὦ ΟΣ ΧΗ
καὶ ὄργανα γίγνηται κοσμηθέν. ot δὲ τὴν ἐν Tt-
’ 4 > / > \ / \ \
μαίῳ λεγομένην ἀνάγκην ev δὲ Φιλήβῳ περὶ τὸ
μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον ἐλλείψεως" καὶ ὑπερβολῆς ἀμε-
/ Ne tg) ΄ a & , 28 \ \
Tpiav Kal ἀπειρίαν TH ὕλῃ προστιθέντες ἀλλὰ μὴ

~ fond a3 , A A 4 4... ἃ A +
Ε τῇ ψυχῇ, ποῦ" θήσονται τὸ τὴν ὕλην ἀεὶ μὲν ἄμορ-
φον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγεσθαι καὶ πά-
7” ποιότητος Kal δυνάμεως οἰκείας ἔρημον εἰκά-

1 γένηται -Bernardakis.
2 ἐλλήψεως -r; [ἐλλείψεως καὶ ὑπερβολῆς] -deleted by

a

Thévenaz (L’ Ame du Monde, p. 19, n. 62).

3 Turnebus ; bexa γε ov -MSS. ἐγ ὰ . vac: 16%-f) wae:
17 -m; vac. 10 -r... ye ov).

* See 1014 c supra with page 185, note c.

ὃ For χώρα in this sense of “room” in which to hold
something cf. De (Comm. Not. 1077 © infra (τοῦ διάστασιν
οὐκ ἔχοντος οὐδὲ χώραν ἐν αὑτῷ) and Quaest. Conviv. ΤΟΥ B
(χώραν πλακοῦντι καταλιπεῖν).

¢ Timaeus 47 πὶ 4—48 a 7, 56 c 3-7, and 68 © I1—69 a 5.
For the attribution to which Plutarch here objects cf.
*Timaeus Locrus’”’ 93 a; Diogenes Laertius, iii, 75-76
(p. 151, 17-24 [Long]); Aétius i, 26, 3 (Dow. Gracci, p. 3214
18-19 and 8 19-20); Numenius (p. 97, 1-5 [Leemans]) in
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 328, 8-11 (Wrobel)=p. 301,
18-20 (Waszink) and zbid., pp. 299, 14-301, 22 (Wrobel) =
pp. 273, 15-275, 17 (Waszink); Plotinus, Enn. 1, viii, 7,
lines 4-7; Proclus, Jn Platonis Cratylum, Ὁ. 112, 25-28
(Pasquali). Even Lamprias in De Defectu Orac. 435 r—
436 a is made to interpret Plato as οὐκ ἀποστερῶν τὴν ὕλην

188

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1014

pient and material principle* too already possessed
magnitude and dimension and spaciousness ὃ ; but it
was in want of beauty and shape and regularity of
figures, and these were allotted to it that it might be
reduced to order and then become all the various
bodies and organs of plants and animals and of earth
and sea and sky and stars. Those, however, who
attribute to matter and not to the soul what in the
Timaeus is called necessity ® and in the Philebus
measurelessness and infinitude in the varying degrees
of deficiency and excess,? what will they make of
the fact that by Plato matter is said always to be
amorphous and shapeless and devoid of all quality
and potency of its own ὁ and is likened to odourless

τῶν ἀναγκαίων πρὸς τὸ γιγνόμενον αἰτιῶν, and in Quaest.
Conviv. 720 s-c Plutarch in his own person interpreting the
Timaeus speaks of the universe as perpetually involved in
generation and change διὰ τὴν σύμφυτον ἀνάγκην τοῦ σώματος.

ἃ Philebus 24 a—25 a and 25 c ὅ-Ὁ 1 (see page 185, note
d supra). For the attribution to which Plutarch here ob-
jects cf. Hermodorus according to Dercyllides as reported
from Porphyry by Simplicius, Phys., p. 247, 34-35 ; Proclus,
In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 263, 10-14 and p. 384, 29-30
(Diehl) and De Malorum Subsistentia, col. 236, 21-24
(Cousin) =§ 35, 19-21 (Boese); Aristides Quintilianus, De
Musica iii, 11 (p. 110, 2-9 [Winnington-Ingram]).

ὁ Timaeus 50 8 6—c 2, 50 p 7- 1, 50 © 4-5, and 51 a 4-7,
where as in the following simile (Timaeuws 50 Ἑ 5-8) the
subject is the receptacle, 1.6. χώρα, and not ὕλη (see τὸ
mavdexes καὶ ὑλικόν [1014 Ἑ supra] and page 185, note ὁ
supra). With Plutarch’s statement here cf. Albinus, Hpitome
viii, 2 (p. 49, 6-11 [Louis]=p. 162, 30-36 [Hermann]) ; Doz.
Graeci, Ὁ. 308 a 4-9 and B 5-9; and Chalcidius, Platonis
Timaeus, p. 356, 8-12 (Wrobel)=p. 326, 3-6 (Waszink).
With his δυνάμεως οἰκείας ἔρημον cf. ἀργὸν ἐξ αὑτοῦ (1015 a
infra); Proclus, Elements of Theology 80 (p. 76, 5-6 [Dodds)) :
Simplicius, Categ., p. 249, 26-27 ; Olympiodorus, Jn Platonis
Phaedonem, p, 40, 19-21 (Norvin),

189

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1014) ζεσθαι δ᾽ awdeow ἐλαίοις ἃ πρὸς τὰς βαφὰς οἱ
1015 μυρεψοὶ λαμβάνουσιν; οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε τὸ ἄποιον
καὶ ἀργὸν ἐξ αὑτοῦ καὶ ἀρρεπὲς" αἰτίαν κακοῦ καὶ

> Woe Date θ θ A Il 4 4 “- 9
ἀρχὴν" ὑποτίθεσθαι τὸν [lAatwva καὶ καλεῖν ἀπει-
ρίαν αἰσχρὰν καὶ κακοποιὸν αὖθις δ᾽ ἀνάγκην πολλὰ
τῷ θεῷ δυσμαχοῦσαν καὶ ἀφηνιάζουσαν. ἡ γὰρ
4 “
ἀναστρέφουσα τὸν οὐρανόν, ὥσπερ ἐν [[ολιτικῷ
λέγεται, καὶ ἀνελίττουσα πρὸς τοὐναντίον ἀνάγκη
ire) ΤῊΝ 4? 6 fy ‘ong Thi ee ἐλ \
καὶ “᾿ σύμφυτος" ἐπιθυμία ᾽᾿ καὶ “' τὸ τῆς πάλαι ποτὲ
φύσεως σύντροφον πολλῆς μετέχον ἀταξίας πρὶν
εἰς τὸν νῦν κόσμον ἀφικέσθαι, πόθεν éyyéeyove’
τοῖς πράγμασιν εἰ τὸ μὲν ὑποκείμενον ἄποιος" ἦν
ὕλη καὶ ἄμοιρον" αἰτίας ἁπάσης ὁ δὲ δημιουργὸς
Β ἀγαθὸς καὶ πάντα βουλόμενος αὑτῷ κατὰ δύναμιν
ἐξομοιῶσαι τρίτον δὲ παρὰ ταῦτα μηδέν; at γὰρ

i OS ne ἀρεπὲς “€, Us a m, r, Escor. 72.
- καὶ ἀρχὴν καὶ ἀρχὴν -f.
5 ἀφανίζουσαν -r.
4 συμφύτοις -€, ἃ (corrected in margin).
5 the B, U5 ἐγέγονε “6.4 ἐγεγόνει -f, Ὡς Ir, Escor. 72.
V

ς
ἄποιος -Β ; ἄποιον -Εἰ ; ἄποιον -all other Mss.
7 ἄμοιρος -Wyttenbach.

6

¢ This substitution for τὰ δεξόμενα ὑγρὰ τὰς ὀσμάς of
Timaeus 50 © 7-8 is made by Albinus too in Epitome viii, 2
(p. 49, 12-13 [Louis]=p. 162, 37 f. [Hermann]). For oil as
the base of perfumes cf. with Plutarch, De Iside 374 © and
Quaest. Conviv. 661 c especially Theophrastus, De Odoribus
§§ 14-20 and Pliny, ΛΔ΄. ἢ]. xiii, 7

> The terminology is Stoic. See infra De Stoic. Repug. |
1054 a and De Comm. Not. 1076 c-p with note c there; and |
cf. De Iside 514 E, where ὕλη, which in 372 τ was char-
acterized as ῥέπουσα dei πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον ἐξ ἑαυτῆς. is ex-
pressly used not in the Stoic sense of ἄψυχόν τι σῶμα Kal
ἄποιον ἀργόν τε καὶ ἄπρακτον ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ.

ς This expression, not used by Plato, combines Plutarch’s

190

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1014-1015

oils¢ which makers of perfume take for their in-
fusions? For what is without quality and of itself
inert and without propensity ὃ Plato cannot suppose
to be cause and principle of evil and call ugly and
maleficent infinitude ὁ and again necessity which is
largely refractory and recalcitrant to god.¢ In fact,
the necessity and “‘ congenital desire ’’ whereby the
heaven is reversed, as is said in the Politicus,¢ and
rolled back in the opposite direction and “ its
ancient nature’s inbred character which had a large
share of disorder before reaching the state of the
present universe,’ whence did these come to be in
things if the substrate was unqualified matter and
so void of all causality and the artificer good and so
desirous of making all things resemble himself as far
as possible’ and third besides these there was
nothing? For we are involved in the difficulties of

interpretations of the Philebus and the Luws in 1014 Ὁ-Ὲ
supra (see pages 185, note d and 187, note 7). In contrast
to Plutarch cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 175, 8-10
(Diehl) with Plotinus, Enn. 11, iv, 16, lines 19-24 and Olym-
piodorus, In Platonis Phaedonem, p. 40, 19-20 (Norvin).

4 Cf. De Iside 371 s-B (. . . πρὸς τὴν βελτίονα ἀεὶ δυσμα-
χοῦσαν . .. and .. . ἀφηνιασμοὶ Τυφῶνος) : De Virtute
Morali 442 a-s and 451 Ὁ.

¢ Politicus 272 © 5-6 (ἀνελίττουσα from ἀνείλιξις in 270
p 3 and 286 8 9), for the εἱμαρμένη of which Plutarch here
substitutes ἀνάγκη, a substitution which he may have thought
justified by Politicus 269 pv 2-3 (. .. αὐτῷ τὸ ἀνάπαλιν ἰέναι
... ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔμφυτον γέγονε) or on the ground alleged in
1026 B infra (. .. ἀνάγκην, ἣν εἱμαρμένην οἱ πολλοὶ καλοῦσιν).

7 Politicus 273 καὶ 4-6 with slight adaptation but with the
significant omission of the immediately preceding τὸ cwpa-
τοειδὲς τῆς συγκράσεως (contrast Quaest. Conviv. 720 B-c,. ."
διὰ τὴν σύμφυτον ἀνάγκην τοῦ σώματος .. ., Cited in note ¢ on
1014 Ἐ supra).

9 Timaeus 29 © 1—30 a 3 (see note d on 1014 8 supra).

19]

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

\ ~

(1015) Στωικαὶ καταλαμβάνουσιν ἡμᾶς ἀπορίαι, τὸ κακὸν
9 “- \ δ᾿
ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἀναιτίως καὶ ἀγενήτως" ἐπεισ-
/ χὰ 3 x
ἄγοντας, ἐπεὶ τῶν γ᾽ ὄντων οὔτε τἀγαθὸν οὔτε TO
” > 4 ? ? / ~
ἄποιον εἰκὸς ἐστιν οὐσίαν κακοῦ καὶ γένεσιν παρα-
σχεῖν. ἀλλὰ ταὐτὸ Πλάτων οὐκ ἔπαθε τοῖς ὕστε-
ρον, οὐδὲ παριδὼν ὡς ἐκεῖνοι τὴν μεταξὺ τῆς ὕλης
καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τρίτην ἀρχὴν καὶ δύναμιν ὑπέμεινε
τῶν λόγων tov? ἀτοπώτατον, ἐπεισόδιον οὐκ οἷδα
ὅπως ποιοῦντα τὴν τῶν κακῶν φύσιν am αὐτο-

4 \ , > 4 \ ‘ 0.3
μάτου κατὰ συμβεβηκός. ᾿Ἐπικούρῳ μὲν γὰρ οὐδ

C ἀκαρὲς ἐγκλῖναι τὴν ἄτομον συγχωροῦσιν, ὡς ἀν-
αἴτιον ἐπεισάγοντιλ κίνησιν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος" αὐτοὶ
δὲ κακίαν καὶ κακοδαιμονίαν τοσαύτην ἑτέρας τε
περὶ σῶμα μυρίας ἀτοπίας καὶ δυσχερείας, αἰτίαν
ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς οὐκ ἐχούσας, Kat ἐπακολούθησιν
γεγονέναι λέγουσιν.

7. Ὁ δὲ Πλάτων οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ τήν ye? ὕλην

1 ἀγεννήτως -f, m, r. 2 πλάττων ~Escor. 72.
3 +o -f, m, r. 4 ἐπειάγοντες -Y.
5. ἀλλά ye καὶ -f, m, r.

* See De Comm. Not. 1076 c-v infra; cf. De Iside 369 p
(εἰ yap οὐδὲν ἀναιτίως πέφυκε γενέσθαι αἰτίαν δὲ κακοῦ τἀγαθὸν
οὐκ ἂν παράσχοι, δεῖ γένεσιν ἰδίαν καὶ ἀρχὴν ὥσπερ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ
κακοῦ τὴν φύσιν ἔχειν) and Numenius (p. 93, 13-16 [Lee-
mans]) in Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 325, 22-326,
3 (Wrobel) =p. 299, 5-7 (Waszink).

ὃ For οὐδέ in this sense cf. W. J. Verdenius, Alnemosyne,
4 Ser. vi (1953), p. 109; vii (1954), p. 68; and ix (1956),
p. 249.

¢ This “third principle” is ψυχὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν (1014 τ
supra), whereas the τρίτην τινὰ μεταξὺ φύσιν... of De Iside
370 r—371 a is Platonic ‘* matter,’’ there said to be οὐκ
ἄψυχον . . . οὐδ᾽ ἀκίνητον ἐξ αὑτῆς.

4 i.e, the Stoics, who themselves ὅμοιόν τε εἶναί φασιν καὶ

192

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1015

the Stoics by bringing in evil without cause and
process of generation out of what is non-existent,?
since of things that do exist neither what is good nor
what is without quality is likely to have occasioned
evil’s being or coming to be. The same thing did not
happen to Plato, however, as did to those who came
later, for ὃ he did not as they did by overlooking the
third principle and potency, which is intermediate
between matter and god,° acquiesce in the most
absurd of doctrines that makes the nature of evils
supervenient I know not how in a spontaneously
accidental fashion. The fact is that they,? while
conceding to Epicurus not even the slightest swerve
of the atom, on the ground that he thus brings in
uncaused motion from what is non-existent,’ do
themselves assert that vice and so much unhappiness
as there is and countless other monstrous and dis-
agreeable features of body are without any cause
among the principles but have arisen by way of
incidental consequence.f

7. This is not Plato’s way, however ; but, exempt-

ὁμοίως ἀδύνατον τὸ ἀναιτίως τῷ γίνεσθαί τι ἐκ μὴ ὄντος (Alex-
ander, De Fato, p. 192, 14-15 [Bruns]=S.V.F. ii, p. 278,
14-15). See also next note infra.

6 Usener, Epicurea, p. 201, 21-23 (in frag. 281). Cf. the
passages cited in note a on De Stoic. Repug. 1045 s-c and
in note c on 1050 c infra, among them especially De Sollertia
Animalium 964 c; Cicero, De Fato 18, 20, and 22-23;
Galen, De Placitis Hippoc. et Plat. iv, 4 (p. 361, 14-16
{ Miiller]).

t Cf. S.V.I’. i, p. vi, lines 7-10 and ii, frag. 1170 (Aulus
Gellius, vir, i, 7-13); Marcus Aurelius, vi, 36; [Plutarch],
Consolatio ad Apollonium 117 D-E (. . . οὔτε τῶν κατὰ
προηγούμενον λόγον συμβαινόντων οὔτε τῶν κατ᾽ ἐπακολούθησιν) 3
Philo Jud. in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. viii, 14, 45-59 (espe-
cially i, p. 474, 20-22 and p. 476, 7-8 [Mras}).

193

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

“- ¢ ,ὔ 3 if a A
(1015) διαφορᾶς ἁπάσης ἀπαλλάττων Kai τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν
A aA ἥν ἢ ,ὔ a
TOV κακῶν αἰτίαν ἀπωτάτω τιθέμενος ταῦτα περὶ
A 4 , 9 σ΄ an
τοῦ κόσμου γέγραφεν ev τῷ ΙΠολιτικῷ. “παρὰ
‘ 2 A ,ὔ , \ 2
μὲν yap τοῦ ξυνθέντος᾽ πάντα τὰ καλὰ" κέκτηται"
\ \ ~ 3 Ὁ ¢ \ \
παρὰ δὲ τῆς ἔμπροσθεν ἕξεως ὅσα χαλεπὰ Kal
ἄδικα ἐν οὐρανῷ γίγνεται, ταῦτ᾽ ἐξ ἐκείνης αὐτός
D τε ἔχει καὶ τοῖς ζῴοις ἐναπεργάζεται."" καὶ μι-
\ » \ {{ oof 4) ct ~ /
Kpov ἔτι προελθὼν “ προϊόντος b€”’ φησι “ τοῦ χρό-
3 A '¢ b) / > ᾽ - A
νου καὶ λήθης ἐγγιγνομένης ev αὐτῷ μᾶλλον δυνα-
στεύει' τὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς ἀναρμοστίας πάθος ᾿᾿ καὶ
κινδυνεύει “ διαλυθεὶς εἰς τὸν τῆς ἀνομοιότητος
ἄπειρον ὄντα τόπον ᾽᾽ δῦναι πάλιν. ἀνομοιότης δὲ
A A Ὁ 3 \ 3 ’ὔ > 3
περὶ τὴν ὕλην, ἄποιον καὶ ἀδιάφορον οὖσαν, οὐκ
ἔστιν. ἀλλὰ μετὰ πολλῶν ἄλλων καὶ Ἐύδημος
ἀγνοήσας κατειρωνεύεται τοῦ ΙΙλάτωνος ὡς οὐκ
κ᾿ ᾽ν. / e » 55S ae , \ ,
εὖ τὴν πολλάκις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μητέρα Kat τιθήνην
προσαγορευομένην αἰτίαν κακῶν καὶ ἀρχὴν" ἀποφαί-
" Auer -r; ξελθέντος -e, ὦ, f, τη, Escor. 72, Aldine;
roo... vac. 1O-E; vac. 6-B... θέντος -E, B.
2 πάντα τὰ καλὰ -MSS. (SO Cod. B, Vat. 295, and Ven. 185
of Plato; and Clement, Stromata 11, iii, 19, 5) 3 : mavra καλὰ
-all other mss. of Plato (so Theodoret, Proclus, Philoponus,
Simplicius).
3 δὲ τοῦ χρόνου φησὶ -Β.
* μᾶλλον καὶ δυναστεύει -P lato, Politicus Se 7;
ws οὐκ εὖ ey) εἴ [ks ὡς οὐκ αὐτὴν -f, m, τ, Escor. 72,
Aldine ; ws... vac. 7-8... τὴν -E, B.

στ Ν B: κακῶν ιζ ἀρχὴν δέ: u, Escor. 72 (pilav in margin) ;
κακῶν ῥίζαν ἀρχὴν -f, m, τ, Aldine.

ΡΟ να συ Σου a ne Ca Se ΝΞ ee - ᾿ς

α Politicus 273 5 6—c 2.
> Politicus 273 c 6—-p 1.

194

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1015

ing matter from all differentiation and putting the
cause of evils at the farthest remove from god, he
has. written about the universe as follows in the
Politicus?: “ For it has got from him who constructed
it all it has that is fair but from its previous state
whatever troubles and iniquities occur in the universe
—from that source it has these itself and produces
them in its living beings.’’ And a little further on
still he says : “‘ But with the passage of time and the
setting in of forgetfulness the effect of the ancient
discord becomes more potent,’ ® and it is in danger
of sinking again “ dissolved into the boundless region
of dissimilitude.”’* Dissimilitude, however, is not
connected with matter, since matter is without
quality or differentiation.¢ Yet from misapprehen-
sion shared with many others even Eudemus rallies
Plato for not doing right in declaring her to be the
cause and principle of evils whom he frequently calls
by the name of mother and nurse.¢ In fact, while

¢ Politicus 273 Ὁ 6-Ὲ 1. In Plato’s sentence πάλιν goes
with the words that follow (πάλιν 9 ore Pt . γιγνόμενος)
and not with the preceding δύῃ as in Plutarch’s ‘paraphrase,
κινδυνεύει . » - δῦναι πάλιν. On the other hand, all the mss.
of Plato like all those of Plutarch have τόπον (cf. also
Plotinus, Hnn. 1, viii, 13, lines 16-17; Eusebius, Praep.
Evang. xi, 34, 4) and not the πόντον adopted by Burnet,
Taylor, and Diés on the authority of Proclus and Simplicius
(cf. the articles listed in Lustrum, iv [1959], p. 148 [+ 746]
and v [1960], p. 602 [# 1987]).

@ See 1014 F supra with note 6 there.

¢ Kudemus, frag. 49 (Wehrli) ; cf. U. Schiébe, Quaestiones
Eudemeae (Diss. Halle, 1931), pp. 43-45 and Cherniss,
Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato . . ., note 62 (pp. 95-97,
especially p. 97). Eudemus is called by Simplicius (Phys.,
p. 411, 15-16; cf. Pe 133, 21-22) the most genuine disciple
of Aristotle.

195

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1015) vovros. ὃ γὰρ Πλάτων μητέρα μὲν καὶ ἱ τιθήνην καλεῖ
E τὴν ὕλην αἰτίαν δὲ κακοῦ τὴν κινητικὴν τῆς ὕλης
καὶ περὶ τὰ σώματα γιγνομένην μεριστὴν a ἄτακτον
καὶ ἄλογον οὐκ ἄψυχον δὲ κίνησιν, ἣν ἐν Νόμοις
ὥσπερ εἴρηται ψυχὴν ἐναντίαν καὶ ἀντίπαλον τῇ
ἀγαθουργῷ προσεῖπε. ψυχὴ γὰρ αἰτία κινήσεως καὶ
ἀρχή, νοῦς δὲ τάξεως καὶ συμφωνίας περὶ κίνησιν.
ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκ ἀνέστησε τὴν ὕλην a ἀργοῦσαν ἀλλ᾽
ἔστησεν ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνοήτου ταραττομένην' αἰτίας" οὐδ᾽
ἀρχὰς τῇ φύσει μεταβολῆς καὶ παθῶν παρέσχεν,
ἀλλ᾽ οὔσης ἐν πάθεσι παντοδαποῖς καὶ μεταβολαῖς
3 ’ 3 a \ \ > / \ /
ἀτάκτοις ἐξεῖλε τὴν πολλὴν ἀοριστίαν καὶ πλημμέ-
λειαν ἁρμονίᾳ καὶ ἀναλογίᾳ καὶ ἀριθμῷ χρώμενος
ὀργάνοις, ὧν ἔργον ἐστὶν οὐ μεταβολῇ καὶ κινήσει
F ἑτερότητος πάθη καὶ διαφορᾶς" παρέχειν τοῖς
πραττομένην -f.
2 ἔργον μεταβολὴν καὶ κίνησιν -Τὶ (μεταβολὴν καὶ κίνησιν -f}
{in margin], m?! {in margin]).
3 διαφορᾶς -H. Οὐ. (“ diversitatis et differentiae ” -Turne-
_ bus): διαφορὰς -Mss.

@ For “ mother” cf. Timaeus 50 Ὁ 2-4 and 51 a 4-5 and
for “ nurse”’ J'imaeus 49 a 5-6, 52 190 4-π 1, and 88 ἢ 6.
With Plutarch’s statement cf. “ Timaeus Locrus ” 94 a (τὰν
δ᾽ ὕλαν ἐκμαγεῖον καὶ ματέρα τιθάναν te. . .)3 Albinus,
Epitome viii, 2 (p. 49, 1-2 [Louis] =p. 162, 25-27 [Hermann]) ;
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 304, 4-7 and Ὁ. 336, 18-19
(Wrobel)=pp. 277, 18-278, 2 and p. 309, 11-12 (Waszink);
and see page 185, note ὁ supra.

ὃ Timaeus 35 a 2-3 as interpreted in 1014 ἢ supra (See
page 187, notes a and d).

¢ See 1014 p-r supra with note / there.

4 Cf, Plato, Phaedrus 245 c 5—246 a 2 and Laws 896 a 5-
B 5 (see supra 1013 c with note ὃ and 1013 F with note a) ;
and for the argument that follows here cf. Galen, Com-
pendium Timaei Platonis iv b (pp. 43, T-44, 13 [Kranus-

196

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1015

Plato calls matter mother and nurse,* what he calls
the cause of evil is the motion that moves matter and
becomes divisible in the case of bodies,’ the dis-
orderly and irrational but not inanimate motion,
which in the Laws, as has been said,¢ he called soul
contrary and adverse to the one that is beneficent.
For soul is cause and principle of motion,? but
intelligence of order and consonance in motion ὁ ; and
the fact is that god did not arouse matter from torpor /
but put a stop to its being disturbed by the mindless
cause 5 and did not impart to nature the origins of
change and of modifications but from her, who was
involved in modifications of every kind and in dis-
orderly changes,” removed the vast indefinitude and
jangle, using as tools concord and proportion and
number,’ the function of which is not by change and
motion to impart to things the modifications of

Walzer]|) and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, Ὁ. 382, 2-12
(Diehl).
¢ For the relation of τάξις in motion to νοῦς and the lack
of it to ἄνοια cf. Plato, Laws 898 a 8-8 8. The distinction
between ἁπλῶς κίνησις and κίνησις ἐν τάξει is drawn in Plat.
Quaest. 1007 D supra.
f Cf. 1015 a supra (ἀργόν) with note ὁ there; and for what
follows see 1014 n-c supra and Plat. Quaest. 1003 a with notes.
9 See 1014 ὁ supra (τὴν δὲ ταραχώδη καὶ ἀνόητον) and 1016 ς
in fra (ψυχὴν τὴν - - . πλημμελῶς πάντα καὶ ἀτάκτως κινοῦσαν).
"Οὐ. Plato, Timaeus 52 Ὁ 4x 1 (τὴν δὲ δὴ γενέσεως τιθήνην
. ὅσα ἄλλα . .. πάθη . . . πάσχουσαν παντοδαπὴν μὲν ἰδεῖν
φαίνεσθαι. τὰ ΠΗ 1024 c infra (γένεσιν . .. τὴν ἐν μετα-
βολαῖς καὶ κινήσεσιν οὐσίαν) : Quaest. Conviv. 720 c (ἐν γενέσει
καὶ μετατροπῇ καὶ πάθεσι παντοδαποῖς .
3 Cf. ΠΣ Conviv. 720 B (ἐβούλετ᾽ οὖν μηδὲν... ; ὑπολιπεῖν
. ἀόριστον ἀλλὰ κοσμῆσαι λόγῳ καὶ μέτρῳ καὶ dobad τὴν φύσιν
᾿ ai) ; and see 1013 c supra with the passages referred to in
page 175, note c, especially 1029 n-E and 1030 c in chap. 33
infra.

197

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1015) πράγμασιν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀπλανῆ καὶ στάσιμα καὶ
τοῖς κατὰ ταὐτὰ" ὡσαύτως ἔχουσιν ὅμοια ποιεῖν. ἡ
μὲν οὖν διάνοια τοιαύτη κατά γε τὴν ἐμὴν δόξαν

aA /

τοῦ Ἰ]λάτωνος.
8. ᾿Απόδειξις δὲ πρώτη μὲν ἢ THS λεγομένης καὶ
δοκούσης αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀσυμφωνίας καὶ δια-
1016 φορᾶς λύσις. οὐδὲ γὰρ σοφιστῇ κραιπαλῶντι, πό-
θεν γε δὴ Πλάτωνι, τοιαύτην ἄν τις ἀναθείη περὶ
οὗς ἐσπουδάκει μάλιστα τῶν λόγων ταραχὴν καὶ
ἀνωμαλίαν ὥστε τὴν αὐτὴν φύσιν ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀγένη-
Tov" ἀποφαίνειν" καὶ “γενομένην, ἀγένητον" μὲν ἐν
Φαίδρῳ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐν δὲ Τιμαίῳ γενομένην." ἡ
μὲν οὖν ἐν Φαίδρῳ διάλεκτος ὀλίγου δεῖν ἅπασι
διὰ στόματός ἐστι, τῷ ἀγενήτῳ" τὸ ἀνώλεθρον τῷ
δ᾽ αὐτοκινήτῳ πιστουμένη τὸ ἀγένητον" αὐτῆς" ἐν
δὲ Τιμαίῳ “τὴν δὲ ψυχήν ᾽" φησιν ' “οὐχ ὡς νῦν
ὑστέραν ἐπιχειροῦμεν λέγειν οὕτως ἐμηχανήσατο
καὶ ὁ θεὸς νεωτέραν---οὐ yap ἂν ἄρχεσθαι πρεσβύ-
εν , , 10 » 3 ; 11

Β τερον ὑπὸ νεωτέρου συνέρξας" εἴασεν---ἀλλά πως

κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ -F. 2 ἀγέννητον -f, m, r

ἀποφαίνει -Υ.

ἀγέννητον -f, m, r.

Wyttenbach ; γινομένην -Mss. (γιγνομένην -T).

ἀγεννήτῳ -f, m, Τ.

TO -U.

ἀγέννητον -f, m, r.

δὲ -omitted by B; δὲ δὴ -Plato (Zimaeus 34 Bb 10).

10 Stephanus from Timaeus 34 c 2; ayysnees =f, te
συνεὶρξεν -€ (sic); συνεῖρξεν -U ; auveips . . vac. 3 -F, vac.

2-Bs; cuvap... vac. 3 -Escor. 72 ; : Sse ks Aldine.
1 ἀλλὰ πῶς Ἔ, B, e, u, Escor. 72.

* For this collocation see supra Plat. Quaest. 1002 pb,
note ὁ. |
> See supra 1014 a, note g.
¢ Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 119, 29-30

198

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1015-1016

diversity and difference? but rather to make them
inerrant and stable and similar to the entities that
are invariably identical. Such, then, in my opinion
is Plato’s meaning.

8. A first proof of it is that it resolves what is
called and seems to be his inconsistency and self-
contradiction.’ For one would not attribute even to
a drunken sophist and it is nonsense then to attribute
to Plato in regard to the doctrines about which he
had been most seriously concerned such confusion
and capriciousness as to declare of the same entity
both that it is unsubject to generation and that it
did come to be, in the Phaedrus that the soul is
unsubject to generation and in the Timaeus that it
came to be.© Now, almost everyone has at the tip of
his tongue the discourse in the Phaedrus ἃ confirming
the soul’s indestructibility by the fact that it is not
subject to generation and its not being subject to
generation by the fact that it is self-moved ; but in
the Timaeus® he says: “The soul, however, now
later in the account that we are attempting, was not
thus junior also in god’s devising—for he would not
have permitted the senior of those that he had
coupled to be ruled by the junior—, but we, as we

(Diehl); Chaleidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 91, 9-12 and
92, 3-11 (Wrobel) = pp. 76, 10-12 and 77, 13-20 (Waszink).

4 Phaedrus 245 c 5—246 a 2. With Plutarch’s summary
of the argument here cf. Albinus, Epitome xxy, 4 (p. 121,
3-6 [Louis] =p. 178, 12-15 [Hermann]); Hermias, /n Platonis
Phaedrum, Ὁ. 115, 1-3 (Couvreur); and Macrobius, Jn
Somnium Scipionis τι, xiii, 12.

¢ Timaeus 34 B 10—35 a 1. See 1013 F supra and the
notes there; and observe that Plutarch in his quotation
here stops short of ἐκ τῶνδε . . ., which modifies συνεστήσατο
in Timaeus 35a 1. ᾿ῃ

199

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1016) ἡμεῖς πολὺ μετέχοντες" τοῦ προστυχόντος τε καὶ
εἰκῇ ταύτῃ πῃ καὶ λέγομεν, ὁ δὲ καὶ γενέσει καὶ
ἀρετῇ προτέραν" (καὶ πρεσβυτέραν)" τὴν ψυχὴν
σώματος ὡς δεσπότιν καὶ ἄρξουσαν ἀρξομένου
συνεστήσατο. καὶ πάλιν, εἰπὼν ὡς “ ᾿αὐτὴ ἐν
ἑαυτῇ στρεφομένη θείαν ἀρχὴν ἤρξατο ἀπαύστου
καὶ ἔμφρονος Piov,” “τὸ μὲν δὴ σῶμά᾽ ᾿ φησιν
“ὁρατὸν οὐρανοῦ" “γέγονεν, αὐτὴ" δ᾽ ἀόρατος μὲν"
λογισμοῦ δὲ μετέχουσα καὶ ἁρμονίας ψυχὴ τῶν
νοητῶν ἀεί T ὄντων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀρίστη γενο-
μένη τῶν γεννηθέντων." ᾧ ἐνταῦθα γὰρ τὸν μὲν
θεὸν ἄριστον εἰπὼν τῶν ἀεὶ ὄντων τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν

Ο ἀρίστην τῶν γεννηθέντων," σαφεστάτῃ ταύτῃ τῇ
διαφορᾷ καί ἀντιθέσει τὸ ἀΐδιον αὐτῆς καὶ τὸ
ἀγένητον" ἀφήρηται.

9. Τίς οὖν τούτων ἐπανόρθωσις ἑτέρα πλὴν ἧς
αὐτὸς δίδωσι τοῖς δέχεσθαι βουλομένοις; ἀγένη-
Tov” μὲν γὰρ ἀποφαίνει ψυχὴν τὴν πρὸ τῆς κόσμου
γεμέσείθα πλημμελῶς πάντα καὶ ἀτάκτως κινοῦσαν

᾿ μετέχοντες πολὺ -Ἰ. 2 τε -omitted by r.
ΤΡ ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ -r.
<...) added by Turnebus from Trmaeus 34 c 4-5 (ef.
ius F supra).
᾿ ἘΝ -ποῖ in Timaeus 34. ¢ 5.
ὁρατὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ -f, m, ΤΥ.
7 αὐτὴ -Β. Miiller from Timaeus 36 Ὁ 63; αὕτη -Μ58.
(αὔτη τι).
8 αὕτη μὲν ἀόρατος -ἔ, τη. 13 αὕτη μὲν ἀόρατος μὲν ~Escor. 72.
9. γενηθέντων -Ἐς, B, u, Escor. 72.
10 fy m3 γεννηθέν -r (at end of line); γενηθέντων -E, B, e, u,
Escor. 72.
11 ἀγέννητον -f, τη, Fr. 12 ἀγέννητον -f, Τὴ, r

4 Timaeus 36 x 3-4. Plutarch stops short of πρὸς τὸν
σύμπαντα χρόνον Which in the Timaeus follows ἔμφρονος βίου.
Ὁ Timaeus 36 © 5—37 a 2.

200

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1016

partake largely of the casual and random, express
ourselves in this way too, whereas he constructed the
soul prior ¢and senior) to body in generation and
excellence to be mistress and ruler of it as her
subject.” And again, after having said @ that “ her-
self revolving within herself she made a divine
beginning of ceaseless and rational life,” he says?:
“So the body of heaven has come to be visible ; but
soul herself, invisible but participant in reason and
concord,° is become best of the things generated by
the best of intelligible and everlasting beings.” 4
lor here he has called god best of everlasting beings
but the soul best of the things generated, and by
this most manifest distinction and opposition he has
removed from her the character of being everlasting
and ungenerated.

9. What way of adjusting these statements ὁ is
there, then, other than what he provides himself for
those who will accept it? Tor unsubject to genera-
tion is said of the soul that before the generation of
the universe keeps all things in disorderly and
jangling motion,‘ but come to be and so subject to

¢ See supra 1014 £ and note h there.

¢ What follows shows that Plutarch construed the passage
in this way, the second of the three ways considered by
Proclus (Jn Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 294, 1-18 [Diehl]); see
also Plat. Quaest. 1002 B (ὁ yap θεὸς ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς) with
note d on page 42.

¢ Secel014 a, note g supra on συνοικειῶν.

7 Cf. κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως in Timaeus 30 a
3-5 (paraphrased in 1016 pv infra), the cause of which motion
according to Plutarch must have been precosmic soul (see
1015 © supra with notes ὦ and g there; cf. Proclus, Jn
Platonis Timaeum i, p. 382, 3-4 and p. 391, 8-12 [Diehl]
and Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 326, 15-17 and 328,
16-20 [Wrobel] =pp. 299, 16-18 and 302, 3-6 [Waszink]).

201

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1016) γενομένην᾽ δὲ καὶ γενητὴν᾽ πάλιν ἣν ὁ θεὸς ἔκ τε
ταύτης καὶ τῆς μονίμου τε καὶ ἀρίστης οὐσίας ἐκεί-
νης ἔμφρονα" καὶ τεταγμένην ἀπεργασάμενος καὶ"
καθάπερ εἶδος καὶ τῷ αἰσθητικῷ τὸ νοερὸν καὶ τῷ
κινητικῷ τὸ τεταγμένον ἀφ᾽ αὑτοῦ" παρασχὼν ἡγε-

D μόνα τοῦ παντὸς ἐγκατέστησεν. οὕτως γὰρ καὶ τὸ
σῶμα τοῦ κόσμου πῇ μὲν ἀγένητον ἀποφαίνει πῇ
δὲ γενητόν": ὅταν μὲν γὰρ εἴπῃ πᾶν ὅσον ἣν ὁρατὸν
οὐχ ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούμενον ἀτάκτως τὸν
θεὸν παραλαβόντα διακοσμεῖν καὶ πάλιν τὰ τέσ-
capa γένη, πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ἀέρα, πρὶν ἢ"

τὸ πᾶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν" διακοσμηθὲν γενέσθαι, σεισμὸν
ἐμποιεῖν" τῇ ὕλῃ καὶ" ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνης τινάσσεσθαι διὰ
τὴν ἀνωμαλίαν, ὄντα που ποιεῖ καὶ ὑποκείμενα τὰ

1 γιγνομένην τ-ὉΥ. 2 γεννητὴν -f, m, Pr.

3 ἔμφρονον -Ὑ.

4 καὶ -omitted by B and deleted by Diibner.

5 B. Miiller (“‘ de suo’ -Turnebus ; “ ex se”’ -Diibner) ;
am’ αὐτοῦ -MSS.

° ἀγέννητον one γεννητόν ταν ἜΣ

7 πρὶν καὶ -Z'imaeus 53 A 7.

8 an’ αὐτῶν -H. C. (cf. De Defectu Orac. 430 v [ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν
-mss.] and Babbitt ad loc, [L.C.L. v, Ὁ. 458, n. 5]) 3 ὑπ᾽
αὐτῶν -MSS.; ἐξ αὐτῶν -Timaeus 53 a 7.

® Stephanus ; ἐμποιοῦν -Mss.

10 καὶ -omitted by E.

® Cf. γενομένη τῶν γεννηθέντων (Timaeus 37 a 1-2) quoted
in 1016 B supra; but καὶ γενητήν is Plutarch’s own expli-
cation, probably suggested by Timaeus 28 c 1-2 cited in
1016 © infra (γιγνόμενα Kal γενητα).

δ See 1013 F, note ὃ supra.

¢ i.e. the indivisible being of Timaeus 35 a 1-2; see
1024 a infra: τῆς τε κρείττονος οὐσίας Kal ἀμερίστου... περὶ
τὴν ἀεὶ μένουσαν... οὐσίαν. . . . For the connotation of ἔκ τε

202

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1016

generation ® is said on the other hand of soul that
god installed as chief of the sum of things ® when out
of this soul here and that abiding and most excellent
being yonder ¢ he had produced a rational and orderly
one and from himself¢ had provided intellectuality
and orderliness as form? for her perceptivity and
motivity. For thus it is that the body of the universe
too is said in one context to be ungenerated and in
another to be subject to generation’: when Plato
says that 5 everything visible, being not at rest but
in disorderly motion, was taken over by god who
arranges it and says again that” the four kinds, fire
and water and earth and air, before the sum of
things has come to be arranged from them cause
matter? to be agitated and are shaken by it because
of the irregularity, he posits bodies as existing, no

ταύτης καὶ . - - ἐκείνης See infra 1023 F (.. . δοξαστικὴν ταύτην
εν νοητικῆς ἐκείνης) and 1024 ὁ (διαδιδοῦσαν ἐνταῦθα τὰς ἐκεῖθεν
εἰκόνας) ; and for μόνιμος cf. 1094. c-p infra and Adv. Colotem
1116 8 with Plato, Timaeus 29 B 5-7 and 49 εὶ 3-4.

d See Plat. Quaest. 1001 c (... καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ
γέγονεν) with note 6 there.

¢ See 1013 c supra (. . . τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς ὑποκειμένην καὶ
δεχομένην τὸ κάλλιστον εἶδος .. .) and Proclus, In Platonis
Timaeum ii, pp. 153, 28-154, 1 (Diehl); cf. also Plotinus.
Ἐπ. τι, iv, 3, lines 4-6 and 111, ix, 5, line 3.

7 Cf. Apuleius, De Platone i, 8 (p. 91, 12-13 [Thomas]) ;
Numenius (p. 91, 9-17 [Leemans]) in Chalcidius, Platonis
Timaeus, p. 324, 4-11 (Wrobel)=p. 297, 10-16 (Waszink) ;
Hippolytus, Refutatio i, 19, 4 (p. 20, 2-6 [Wendland]}).

9 Timaeus 30 a 3-5. For the stress laid on this passage by
Plutarch and Atticus ef. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i,
Ῥ. 381, 26-28 (Diehl).

» Timaeus 52 © 3-5 and 53 a 2-7; cf. Plutarch, De Defectu
Orac. 430 c-D (τὰ στοιχεῖα σείοντα τὴν ὕλην .. .).

* For the insertion of this term see supra 1013 c, note c
on page 173.

203

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

/ A A A , 7 ω
(1010) σώματα πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως" ὅταν δὲ
/ ’ “ A 7 / \ ~
πάλιν λέγῃ τῆς ψυχῆς νεώτερον γεγονέναι τὸ σῶμα
A A ’
καὶ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι γενητὸν ὅτι ὁρατὸς καὶ
ε \ \ A , a
E ἁπτὸς καὶ σῶμα ἔχων ἐστὶ τὰ δὲ τοιαῦτα γιγνό-
\ ~
μενα καὶ γενητὰ" ἐφάνη, παντὶ δῆλον ws γένεσιν
τῇ φύσει τοῦ σώματος ἀποδίδωσιν. ἀλλὰ πολλοῦ
π > , , \ / ι οὐ ΑΝ
δεῖ τἀναντία λέγειν καὶ διαφέρεσθαι πρὸς αὑτὸν
3 a A
οὕτως ἐκφανῶς" ἐν Tots μεγίστοις. ov yap ὡσαύ-
“Ὁ 3 ~ / / 4 e \ lo
τως οὐδὲ ταὐτὸ σῶμα γίγνεσθαί τέ φησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ
a \ 4 \ la 4
θεοῦ καὶ εἶναι πρὶν ἢ" γενέσθαι: ταῦτα yap ἄντικρυς
a ΠΝ 9 \ , δα a6 \ \ 7
φαρμακῶντός ἐστιν. ἀλλὰ τί δεῖ νοεῖν" καὶ τὴν
/ > ἢ , res. \ \ 8 \ 7
γένεσιν αὐτὸς διδάσκει. “(τὸ μὲν yap’ πρὸ τού-
tov’ φησὶ “᾿ ταῦτα πάντα" εἶχεν ἀλόγως καὶ ἀμέ-
Tpws: ὅτε δ᾽ ἐπεχειρεῖτο κοσμεῖσθαι τὸ πᾶν, πῦρ
πρῶτον καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ἀέρα, ἴχνη μὲν
” 11 ¥ £2 wind D , \ 13 ὃ ’
ἔχοντα" atta αὑτῶν," παντάπασι μὴν᾽" διακείμενα

γεννητὸν -f, m, r.
γεννητὰ -f, τὰ, r (A}, Εἰ P in Timaeus 28 c 2).
m, Aldine; αὐτὸν -all other ss. (αὐτὸν αὐτὸν -U).
ἀφανῶς -M, ΤΥ.
ἢ -omitted by f, m, r, Escor. 72.
νοεῖν -omitted by f, m, r (added in margin of f and m).
καὶ τὴν -omitted by Aldine, Basiliensis; καὶ ταύτην
τὴν OF καὶ τὸ γινόμενον καὶ τὴν -B. Miiller; καὶ τίνα (2)
-Bernardakis.

8 +6 μὲν δὴ -Timueus 53 a 8.

® τούτου -Bernardakis from Timaeus 53 a 8; τοῦ -MSS.

10 πάντα ταῦτ᾽ -Timaeus 53 A 8.

11 uy, f,r; ἔχον τὰ -E, B, e, m, Escor. 72.

12 ἅττα αὑτῶν -Diibner (implied by Xylander’s version)
from Timaeus 53 B 2 (ἔχοντα αὑτῶν ἄττα [αὐτὰ -A, F, Y;
Simplicius, Phys., p. 228, 6]); αὐτὰ αὐτῶ -Μ88.

204:

sy ὦ ὦ fF ὦ W fF

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1016

doubt, and ready to hand“ before the generation of
the universe ; but, when again he says that? body
has come to be junior to soul and that ¢ the universe
is subject to generation because it is visible and
tangible and has body and such things had been
shown to be in process of becoming and subject to
generation, it is clear to everyone that he attributes
a genesis to the nature of body.4 Nevertheless, he
is far from contradicting himself and being so
manifestly at odds with himself in matters of the
greatest moment, for it is not in the same way and
not the same body that he says is brought into being
by god and exists before it came to be; it takes a
downright sot ¢ for that, whereas he himself explains
the sense in which the genesis too must be under-
stood. ‘‘ For before this,’ he says,f “‘ all these were
without ratio or measure ; and, when it was under-
taken to reduce the sum of things to order, fire first
and water and earth and air, while having some
traces of themselves, were nevertheless in the very
condition that is likely to be the state of everything

4 See 1014 8 supra: οὐ γενομένην ἀλλὰ ὑποκειμένην ἀεὶ τῷ
δημιουργῷ. . ..

δ Timaeus 34 B 10—35 a 13 see supra 1016 a-B with
note 6 on page 199.

¢ Timaeus 28 8 T-c 2.

@ See against this conclusion Proclus, Jn Platonis Ti-
maeum i, pp. 283, 27-285, 6 and ii, pp. 117, 3-119, 10 (Diehl)
on Timaeus 28 B 7-ο 2 and 34 c 4—35 a 1 respectively.

¢ Cf. σοφιστῇ κραιπαλῶντι (1016 a supra) and εἰ yap οὐ
κραιπαλῶντες οὐδὲ φαρμακῶντες .. . (Adv. Colotem 1123 τ).

7 Timaeus 53 a 8-3 5.

13 Diibner (implied by Xylander’s version) from Timaeus
53 8 3 (μὴν -F, Y3 ye μὴν -Α ; μὲν -Simplicius, Phys.,
p. 228, 7); παντάπασιν ἦν -Mss.

205

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA
(1016) .

yt ὥσπερ εἰκὸς ἔχειν ἅπαν ὅταν ἀπῇ τινος θεός, οὕτω
δὴ τότε πεφυκότα ταῦτα πρῶτον διεσχηματίσατο
” 1 9 ayy Τὼ \ ἢ Δεν ¢
εἴδεσι Kat’ ἀριθμοῖς." ἔτι δὲ πρότερον, εἰπὼν ws
“"- “ / A
od μιᾶς ἔργον" ἣν ἀναλογίας ἀλλὰ δυεῖν τὸ συν-
δῆσαι στερεὸν ὄντα καὶ βάθος ἔχοντα τὸν τοῦ
Ἁ » ᾿ \ ” \ \ ~ e
παντὸς ὄγκον Kat διελθὼν ὅτι πυρὸς καὶ γῆς ὕδωρ
ἍΝ ¢e A ? 7, \ . 4 \ /
ἀέρα τε ὁ θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ θεὶς ere: καὶ συνεστή-
\ ? / 6c \ , 3 ((
σατο Tov οὐρανόν, ‘ex Te δὴ τούτων ᾿᾿ φησὶ" “τοι-
1017 ovTwv καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τεττάρων τὸ τοῦ κόσμου
σῶμα ἐγεννήθη" δι᾽ ἀναλογίας ὁμολογῆσαν, φιλίαν
T ἔσχεν ἐκ τούτων, ὥστ᾽ εἰς ταὐτὸν αὑτῷ συνελ-
θὸν ἄλυτον ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων" πλὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ συνδή- β
f ᾽) / / ἢ δι.
σαντος γενέσθαι,᾽᾽ σαφέστατα διδάσκων ὡς οὐχὶ
7 e ~ 70.» y+ \ “ > \
σώματος ἁπλῶς οὐδ᾽ ὄγκου Kat ὕλης ἀλλὰ συμ-
’ A a 6 \ ἐχλ .2 € ,
μετρίας περὶ σῶμα" καὶ κάλλους Kai’ ὁμοιότητος
ἦν ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ καὶ δημιουργός. ταῦτα" δὴ δεῖ"
εἴδεσί τε καὶ -A in Timaeus 53 ὅ.
ἔργου -e, αἱ (corrected by τι5).
᾿δή φησι τούτων τ-Υ.
ἐγενήθη -E, B, u? (corrected by αὖ).
ὑπό του ἄλλου -ΑΛ and P in Timaeus 32 ς 3.
περὶ σῶμα -omitted by a
καὶ -omitted by B, αἱ (added superscript by u’).
8 ταὐτὰ -Hubert (dub., cf. ‘‘ quod idem .. .”’ ~Turnebus).

9 δὴ -omitted by ἢ, m, r; δεῖ μέρος μῆς, ‘by Eiscor. 72,
Aldine, Basiliensis.

ἋὯ ὦ ὧι &©® WD WN fH

« Cf. Plutarch, De Facie 926 Fr (L.C.L. xii, p. 84, note ὁ):
but there the absence of god is said to mean absence of

206

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1016-1017

whenever god is absent from it,? and so, this being
then their natural state, god first gave them definite
shape with figures and numbers.” Still earlier, after
saying that ® it took not one proportion but two to
bind together the mass of the sum of things since it
is a solid and has depth and after explaining that °
god put water and air between fire and earth and so
bound together and constructed the heaven,? he
says¢: “from these, being such in kind and four in
number, was the body of the universe engendered
consentient through proportion, and from these it
acquired amity so that banded in union with itself it
came to be indissoluble by others than by him who
had bound it together.” So he most manifestly
teaches that god was father and artificer not of body
in the absolute sense,f that is to say not of mass and
matter, but of symmetry in body and of beauty and
similarity.? This, then, is what one must suppose in

νοῦς καὶ ψυχή, whereas here it is assumed to be absence of
νοῦς Only with ψυχὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν (see 1014 Ἐ, note g supra),
i.e. irrational soul, present and moving the precosmic chaos
(see supra 1016 c with note f there and Plat. Quaest. 1003
A, note h).

ὃ Timaeus 32 a 7-B 8.

¢ Timaeus 32 B 3-7.

4 In fact Plato says συνεστήσατο οὐρανὸν ὁρατὸν Kal ἁπτόν
(Timaeus 32 B 7-8; cf. 31 B 4-8 ae 36 © 5-6 [quoted in
1016 8 supra)), although in Timaeus 30 a 3-5 (see 1016 νυ
supra) the supposed precosmic chaos had been called ὁρατόν
and Plutarch asserts that the tangibility of body was not
created by the demiurge (1014 c supra with note d there).

ε Timaeus 32 B 8--Ὁ 4.

f See supra pages 183, note d and 185, note c; and with
σώματος ἁπλῶς cf. ἁπλῶς ψυχήν in 1024 a infra.

9 Cf. 1014 © supra(...xdddous δὲ καὶ μορφῆς καὶ σχημάτων
μετριότητος ἐνδεῶς εἶχεν) and Plato, Timaeus 53 8 5-6 and
69 B 2-5.

207

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1017) διανοεῖσθαι καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς, ὡς τὴν μὲν οὔθ᾽ ὑπὸ
τοῦ θεοῦ γενομένην οὔτε κόσμου ψυχὴν οὖσαν ἀλλά
τινα φανταστικῆς" καὶ δοξαστικῆς ἀλόγου δὲ καὶ
ἀτάκτου φορᾶς καὶ ὁρμῆς δύναμιν αὐτοκίνητον καὶ

Β ἀεικίνητον τὴν δ᾽ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς διαρμοσάμενος"
τοῖς προσήκουσιν ἀριθμοῖς καὶ λόγοις ἐγκατέστη-
σεν ἡγεμόνα τοῦ κόσμου γεγονότος γενητὴν" οὖσαν.

10. “Ore δὲ περὶ τούτων διενοεῖτο ταῦτα καὶ οὐ
θεωρίας ἕνεκα τοῦ τε κόσμου [μὴ " γενομένου καὶ
τῆς ψυχῆς ὁ ὁμοίως" ὑπετίθετο σύστασιν καὶ ,«γένεσιν'
ἐκεῖνο πρὸς πολλοῖς τεκμήριόν ἐστι μέγα" τὸ τὴν
μὲν ψυχὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀγένητον" ὥσπερ εἴρηται

1 φανταστικὴν -Υ.

2 ἣν δὴ -ἴὸ ; ἣν δὲ -εἰ (ἣν remade to τὴν by 685).

3. ὃ θεὸς αὐτὸς διαρμοσάμενος -B; αὐτὸς ὁ δημιουργησάμε-
vos -Ἰ.

4 γεννητὴν -f, m, r

5 μὴ -omitted by B, f, m, r; μὴ Ἑ : “ -e, U3 μὴ -Escor.

72.

6 MSS.; ὅμως -Wyttenbach (with μὴ γενομένου supra).

7 καὶ γένεσιν -omitted by r.

8 μέγα “Hh des (cf. Moralia 91 pv, 624 F, 1101 ©); μέτὰ -e,
Escor. 12; wera -U : ἔστι. .΄. Vac. 5-H: vac 6-0. ogee
ἐστι τὸ -f, m, r, Aldine.

® ἀγέννητον -f, m, r (so also infra γεννητὴν and γεννητὸν
ἀγέννητον δὲ).

a Cf. Thévenaz (L’ Ame du Monde, p. 22, note 99):
‘“ Dans tout ce passage (scil. chap. 9) Plutarque applique
aussi ἃ l’4me ce que Platon ne disait que du corps.”’ Plutarch
in fact here abandons the literal interpretation that he pro-
fesses to maintain, for the Timaeus speaks not of a precosmic
soul regulated or organized by the demiurge but of soul pro-
duced by him “‘ substance ”’ and all (cf. Proclus, In Platonis
Timaeum i, p. 383, 25-31 and ii, p. 119, 10-24 [Diehl] with
insistence upon the ἐκ τῶνδε . . ., omitted by Plutarch in

208

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1017

the case of soul also,* that, whereas the one ὃ neither
was brought into being by god nor is the soul of the
universe ὁ but is a certain self-moved and so per-
petually activated potency? of imaginative and
opinionative but irrational and disorderly transport
and impulse,’ the other was regulated by god him-
self with the appropriate numbers and ratios’ and
then being generated was installed by him as chief 9
of the universe that had come to be.

10. That this is what he really thought about these
matters and that he was not for the sake of examina-
tion supposing in like manner a composition and
generation of the soul and of the universe which has
come to be,” of this a strong indication in addition to
many is the notorious fact that, while, as has been
said,? he speaks of the soul both as ungenerated and

his quotation of Timaeus 34 B 10—35 a 1 [see supra page 199,
note e}).

> See 1016 c supra: ἀγένητον μὲν... ψυχὴν τὴν πρὸ τῆς
κόσμου γενέσεως .. . γενομένην δὲ... ἣν ὁ θεὸς... ..

¢ Contrast 1024 α infra: νῦν οὐχ ἁπλῶς ψυχὴν ἀλλὰ κόσμου
ψυχὴν. ...

4 For δύναμιν see 1015 B supra (τὴν . . . τρίτην ἀρχὴν καὶ
δύναμιν) ; for the implication of καί cf. Hermias, /n Platonis
Phaedrum, p. 103, 20-21 (with p. 104, 7-8) and p. 112, 33-34
(Couvreur) and see swpra 1016 a, note d.

¢ See 1024 a infra (τὴν δοξαστικὴν καὶ φανταστικὴν . ..
κίνησιν . - .) and supra 1014 c, note 9.

7 See supra page 175, note c.

9 See supra 1013 F, note b.

» See supra 1013 a (chap. 8 init.).

#1016 a supra (... ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀγένητον ... καὶ γενομένην,
ἀγένητον μὲν ev Φαίδρῳ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐν δὲ Τιμαίῳ γενομένην).
Resolved by Plutarch in his fashion in 1016 c supra (chap. 9
init.), this was used by Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum i,
p. 287, 18-23 [Diehl]) as evidence that Plato in the 7%maeus
could call the universe γενητόν also though holding it to be
ἀγένητον κατὰ χρόνον.

209

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1017) καὶ γενητὴν λέγεσθαι. τὸν δὲ κόσμον ἀεὶ μὲν γεγο-
νότα καὶ γενητὸν ἀγένητον δὲ μηδέποτε μηδ᾽ ai-
διον. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐν Τιμαίῳ τί δεῖ προφέρειν ;"
ὅλον γὰρ καὶ πᾶν τὸ σύγγραμμα περὶ κόσμου γενέ-
σεως ἄχρι τέλους ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς" ἐστι. τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων

C ἐν μὲν ᾿Ατλαντικῷ προσευχόμενος ὁ Τίμαιος ὀνο-
μάζει τὸν πάλαι μὲν ἔργῳ γεγονότα νῦν δὲ λόγῳ"
θεόν, ἐν Ἰ]ολιτικῷ δὲ 6 Ἰ]αρμενίδειος ἕένος τὸν
κόσμον ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ συντεθέντα φησὶ πολλῶν ἀγα-
θῶν μεταλαβεῖν, εἰ δέ τι φλαῦρόν € ἐστιν ἢ «χαλεπόν,
ἐκ τῆς προτέρας ἕξεως ἀ ἀναρμόστου καὶ ἀλόγου συμ-
μεμιγμένον ἔχειν: ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἰ]ολιτείᾳ περὶ τοῦ
ἀριθμοῦ, ὃν γάμον ἔνιοι καλοῦσιν, ὁ Σωκρά-

> , f cc 49) 66 /
τῆς ἀρχόμενος λέγειν “ἔστι δέ᾽᾽ φησι “θείῳ
\ ~4 ; A 5 »? \ ,
μὲν γενητῷ, περίοδος ἣν" ἀριθμὸς περιλαμβάνει
1 B (προ -E in margin); προσφέρειν -all other mss.
2 an’ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τέλους -Β.
3 λόγοις -Plato, Critias 106 a 4.
4 γεννητῷ -f, m, r, —— 72, Plato (Republic 546 5 3).

5 ἢ -u.

* Contrast Joannes Lydus, De Mensibus iii, 3 (p. 38,
13-16 [Wuensch]). What Plutarch here states as a fact
(cf. Philoponus, De Aeternitate Mundi vi, 24 [pp. 199, 26-
200, 3, Rabe]), taking it to be compatible with his previous
assertion that Plato τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κόσμου πῇ μὲν ἀγένητον
ἀποφαίνει πῇ δὲ γενητόν (1016 ἢ supra with note / there),
would have been denied by those who read Timaeus 27 c 5
in the way reported and rejected by Proclus (Jn Platonis
Timaeum i, Ὁ. 219, 13-18 [Diehl]) ; and it would be untrue
also if Timaeus 40 Β 5 in the version of A, adopted by modern
editors, were surely right, but the ἀΐδια there used of the
‘* fixed stars ’’ was not in the texts read by Cicero, Proclus,
and Chalcidius and so may not have been in that known to
Plutarch.

> Critias 106 a 3-4: τῷ δὲ πρὶν μὲν πάλαι ποτ᾽ ἔργῳ νῦν

210

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1017

as generated, he always speaks of the universe as
having come to be and as generated and never as
ungenerated or everlasting. As to the Timaeus,
what need to cite passages in it? For the whole
work in its entirety from beginning to end is about
the generation of the universe. Among his other
writings, however, in the Account of Atlantis Timaeus
invokes by name the god that in fact of old but now
in word has come to be,® and in the Politicus the
Parmenidean Stranger says © that the universe con-
structed by god partook of much good and that
anything defective or troublesome in it is an in-
gredient retained from its prior discordant and ir-
rational state ; and in the Republic Socrates, when
he begins to speak about the number that some call
Nuptial,? says: “ A divine object of generation has
a period that is comprised by a perfect number,’ ¢

δὲ λόγοις ἄρτι θεῷ γεγονότι προσεύχομαι (cf. P. Frutiger, Les
Mythes de Platon, p. 909, n. 1 and p. 195, ἢ. 2 on Timaeus
20 ἢ 7 and 26 © 4-5). Plutarch’s transposition of the words
tends to diminish their ambiguity and so may not have been
unintentional.

¢ Cf. Politicus 269 p 8-9 and 273 5 4- 1 (see 1015 c-p
supra (chap. 7 init.}).

ἃ Republic 546 5 3-Ὁ 3. With Plutarch’s expression here
ef. Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio τι, xxiv, 11 (p. 131,
8-9 [Hoche]): κατὰ τὸν τοῦ λεγομένου γάμου τόπον ἐν TH
Πολιτείᾳ. . . . lamblichus refers to the passage as τὸν ἐν τῇ
Πλάτωνος πολιτείᾳ γαμικὸν ἀριθμόν (In Nicomachi <Arith-
meticam Introductionem, Ὁ. 82, 20-21 | Pistelli]), and Plutarch
himself in De Iside 373 ¥ speaks of τὸ γαμήλιον διάγραμμα
there formulated.

¢ Republic 546 8 3-4. In 1018 c infra Plutarch says that
six is τέλειος and is called γάμος but does not suggest any
connexion between that and this sentence of Plato’s, the
ἀριθμὸς τέλειος Of which is not the ‘ nuptial number ” any-
way but is distinguished from it.

211

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1017) τέλειος,᾽᾿ οὐκ ἄλλο καλῶν θεῖον yevnrov’ ἢ τὸν
κόσμον.

1022 α 21. (᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς
ὁμοίως) ἐνζταῦθα λέγει τὸ ἀμέριστον καὶ ἀεὶ"
κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον" ὡς μορφὴν καὶ εἶδος, τὸ δὲ περὶ
τὰ σώματα“ γιγνόμενον μεριστὸν ὡς ὑποδοχὴν καὶ
ὕλην, τὸ δὲ μῖγμα κοινὸν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀποτετελεσμέ-
νον. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀμέριστος οὐσία καὶ ἀεὶ κατὰ
ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχουσα μὴ μικρότητι καθάπερ
τὰ ἐλάχιστα τῶν σωμάτων νοείσθω φεύγουσα τὸν

1 γεννητὸν -f, m, r, Escor. 72.

2 κυ ss) e@v<.. .>).-supplied by Ἢ. ἔκ xoomoy. (0s wae
-E; vac.8-B... followed by δὲ ἡ τῶν τριῶν (chap. 11 [1017
σ] infra) through dpriwy καὶ 7 (chap. 20 [1022 E] infra)...
vac. 4-1/2 lines -E; vac. 2-1/2 lines -B .. . followed by
κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ (chap. 21 [1022 ©] here) through τῶν δυεῖν
δευτέρα (chap. 30 [1027 ¥] infra) followed immediately by
περιττῶν. τὴν yap (chap. 30 b [1027 F] infra) to the end -E,
Bs: κόσμον ... «Νϑρ,ὅ 4; vae. 3-9.” ..dus . ἄπει ee
followed by δὲ ἡ τῶν τριῶν through ἀρτίων καὶ ἐπὶ . . . vac.
14 -f; vac. 18 -m,r... followed by κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ through

᾿ τῶν δυοῖν. δευτέρα (δευτέρα δὲ -f) τῶν περιττῶν. τὴν yap -f,

[ΚΤ ; κόσμον. ἔνθα (ἐν... vac. 2 -Escor. 72) δὲ ἡ τῶν τριῶν

through ἀρτίων καὶ ἐπὶ κατὰ (κατὰ -Escor. 72 ; ἐπϊκατὰ -τ)} τὰ
αὐτὰ through τῶν δυοῖν δευτεριττῶν (ρατῶνπε -Escor. 72 in
margin) τὴν γὰρ -e, u, Esecor. 72 ; κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ... τῶν δυεῖν
δευτέρα (chaps. 21-30) and δὲ ἡ τῶν τριῶν . . . ἀρτίων καὶ
(chaps. 11-20) transposed by Maurommates (1848) and B.
Miiller (1870 and 1873).

3. Β ; ἔχων -all other mss.

4 περὶ σῶμα -f.

5 ἀποτελεσμένον -€, U, f.

« Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, pp. 14, 8-15,
20 and p. 30, 6-10 (Kroll); and In Platonis Timaeum i,
p. 292, 6-9 (Diehl).

> The supplements proposed by B. Miiller (1870 [p. 398]

212

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1017, 1022

what he calls a divine object of generation being
nothing other than the universe.4

41. <Nor in our passage’ either does he with
regard to the universe and the soul alike speak of
what is indivisible and ever) invariable as shape or
form, of what becomes divisible in the case of bodies
as receptacle or matter, and of the mixture as having
been produced from both in common.’ Now, the
indivisible and ever invariable and identical being is
to be thought of as eluding division not because of
minuteness as do the smallest of bodies,¢ for it is the

and 1873 [p. 33]), which like the earlier one by Maurom-
mates (1848 [p. 38]) introduce the name of Crantor, were
criticized by H.-R. Schwyzer (Rhein. Mus., lxxxiv [1935],
pp. 361-363) and by Thévenaz (L’ Ame du Monde, pp. 61-
62), who later (Rev. Etudes Grecques, lii [1939], pp. 358-366)
gave in French paraphrase a supplement of his own, gratui-
tously assuming on the basis of De Iside 373 r—374 a that
Plutarch here too had introduced the triangle supposedly
used in the nuptial number and had confused the latter with
the τέλειος ἀριθμός just mentioned but correctly observing
that chap. 21 must continue the theme introduced at the
beginning of chap. 10 by οὐ. .. τοῦ τε κόσμου... . καὶ τῆς
ψυχῆς ὑπετίθετο σύστασιν καὶ γένεσιν.

ὁ ὁ, ὁ. Timaeus 35 a 1-8 4 (1012 B-c supra); see νῦν in
1023 a infra.

¢ For identification of the indivisible with shape or form
and of the divisible with matter H.-R Schwyzer (Rhein.
Mus., Ixxiv [1935], p. 363) cites “‘ Timaeus Locrus’”’ 94 a
(ὕλαν ... τὰν δὲ περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστὰν εἶμεν ...) and 97 κε
(ἀρχαὶ . . . ὡς μὲν ὑποκείμενον a ὕλα ὡς δὲ λόγος μορφᾶς τὸ
εἶδος). to which add 95 Ἑ (. .. κρᾶμα . . -. ἔκ τε τᾶς ἀμερίστω
noes καὶ τᾶς μεριστᾶς οὐσίας, ws ἕν κρᾶμα ἐκ δύο τουτέων
εἶμεν).

e This does not imply that anyone had taken the “ in-
divisible being ”’ of Timaeus 35 a to mean “* minimal body ”’
(though it is treated as quantitatively indivisible, i.e. as a
spatial point, by Aristotle in his criticism of Timaeus 37 a
[cf. Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato .. ., n. 316 on

213

‘

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1022) μερισμόν: τὸ yap ἁπλοῦν Kal ἀπαθὲς καὶ καθαρὸν'
αὐτῆς καὶ μονοειδὲς ἀμερὲς εἴρηται καὶ ἀμέριστον,
ᾧ καὶ τῶν συνθέτων καὶ μεριστῶν καὶ διαφερο-
μένων ἁμωσγέπως θιγοῦσα" παύει τὸ πλῆθος καὶ

F καθίστησιν εἰς μίαν διὰ ὁμοιότητος ἕξιν. τὴν δὲ
περὶ τὰ σώματα γιγνομένην" μεριστὴν εἰ μέν τις
ἐθέλοι' καλεῖν ὕλην ὡς καὶ ὑποκειμένην ἐκείνῃ καὶ
μεταληπτικὴν ἐκείνης φύσιν, ὁμωνυμίᾳ χρώμενος,
οὐ διαφέρει πρὸς τὸν λόγον: οἱ δὲ σωματικὴν ἀξι-
οῦντες ὕλην συμμίγνυσθαι τῇ ἀμερίστῳ. διαμαρ-

1 καθαρὸν καὶ ἀπαθὲς -B.
2 θιγοῦσα -Ditbner ; θήγουσα -Β, u1; θίγουσα -all other mss.
3 Maurommates ; γενομένην -MSS. 4 ἐθέλει -B, u, r.

p. 394 and p. 407]) but is a warning against the common
association of ἀμερές and ἐλάχιστον (cf. Xenocrates, frag. 51
{Heinze}; Alexander, Metaph., p. 247, 22-24; Simplicius,
Categ., p. 39, 12-16) and, as is indicated by Plat. Quaest.
1002 c-p (see note ὁ there), was probably suggested by such
misleading expressions aS ἡ ἀμέριστος οὐσία. . . ἐστιν εἰς
βραχὺ συνηγμένη .. . (Plat. Quaest. 1001 Ὁ): cf. the warning
against taking indivisibly one to mean ἕν ὡς ἐλάχιστον (Da-
mascius, Dub. et Sol., pp. 2, 24-3, 2 [Ruelle]=Speusippus,
frag. 36 [Lang] and Anon. in Platonis Parmenidem 1, 20-
94.-- Rhein. Mus., xivii [1892], p. 602=P. Hadot, Porphyre
et Victorinus ii [Paris, 1968], p. 66).
¢ Cf. the characteristics ascribed to the νοῦς of Anaxagoras
by Plutarch (Pericles iv, 6 [154 c] ) and by Aristotle (Physics
256 Ὁ 24-25; De Anima 405 a 16-17, 405 Ὁ 19-21, 429 Ὁ 23-
24) and by the latter to his own νοῦς ποιητικός (De Anima
430 a 17-18); and for Plutarch himself see infra 1024 a
(τὸ yap νοερὸν -.. ἀπαθὲς .. .) and 1026 D(... ἔκ τε τῆς θείας
καὶ ἀπαθοῦς . . .) and De Facie 945 c-p (ὁ δὲ νοῦς ἀπαθής).
In Plat. Quaest. 1002 σ-Ὁ ἁπλοῦν καὶ εἰλικρινὲς καὶ καθαρὸν
ἁπάσης ἑτερότητος καὶ διαφορᾶς (= μονοειδές here) characterizes
the incorporeal and intelligible (as does ἀπαθές in Amatorius
765 A, τὰ νοητὰ . . - τῆς ἀσωμάτου καὶ ἀπαθοῦς οὐσίας εἴδη). but
Plutarch treats νοῦς itself as ἃ νοητόν (see note g on Plat.
Quaest. 1002 c and note ὃ on 1002 £ supra).

214

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1022

simplicity and impassivity and purity and uniformity
of it? that is meant by its being without parts and
indivisible, that with which when it somehow just
touches ὃ objects composite and divisible and differing
it puts a stop to their multiplicity and reduces it to a
state that is single through similarity.¢ As to the
being that becomes divisible in the case of bodies, if
anyone should wish to call it matter homonymously
in the sense of a nature underlying the former and
capable of participating in it,¢ this use of the term
makes no difference to the meaning ; but those who
maintain that corporeal matter is mixed with the
indivisible being are utterly mistaken,? first because

ὑ Cf. Timaeus 37 a 5-6 (ὅταν . .. ἐφάπτηται. . .) and
Aristotle’s criticism (De Anima 407 a 15-18) as well as his
own use of the metaphor (Metaphysics 1072 b 20-21 and
1051 Ὁ 24-25); cf. also Theophrastus, etaph. 9 B 13-16
and Speusippus, frag. 30, 10-11 (Lang) and among the many
later occurrences especially Hermias, Jn Platonis Phaedrum,
p. 64, 15-17 (Couvreur).

¢ Cf. Themistius, Anal. Post., p. 64, 18-20 (τὴν δὲ καθόλου
ἐπιφορὰν ὁ νοῦς ποιήσεται. τούτου yap ἔργον ἤδη τὰ πολλὰ ἑνοῦν
καὶ τὰ ἄπειρα, ὅπερ φησὶ Πλάτων, πέρατι συνδήσασθαι [Philebus
27 p 9]) and at 1025 c infra the description of the function
of ““sameness”’: ὧν ἂν ἅψηται. . . συνάγειν καὶ συνιστάναι
διὰ ὁμοιότητος ἐκ πολλῶν μίαν ἀναλαμβάνοντος μορφὴν καὶ δύναμιν.

4 So Plutarch himself has called it: see 1013 c supra
with note 6 on page 203 supra and cf. De Iside 374 © (τὴν
ψυχὴν . . . ὡς ὕλην . .. τῷ λόγῳ . . » παρέχομεν).

¢ See 1013 Β-6 supra with note ¢ there. So here Crantor,
while not the only one (see note ὦ on 1022 πὶ supra), is,
however unjustifiably and Schwyzer to the contrary not-
withstanding (Rhein. Mus., Ixxxiv [1935], p. 362), one
among those whom Plutarch has in mind. In addition to
the subsequent arguments of Plutarch’s see the one adduced
against Eratosthenes by Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum ii,
p. 152, 28-29 [Diehl]): κρᾶσις yap οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο ...
ἀμερίστου Kal σώματος.

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

1023 τάνουσι, “πρῶτον μὲν᾽' ὅτι τῶν ἐκείνης. ὀνομάτων
οὐδενὶ νῦν ὁ Πλάτων κέχρηται (δεξαμενὴν γὰρ
εἴωθε καὶ πανδεχῆ καὶ τιθήνην ἀεὶ καλεῖν ἐ ἐκείνην,
οὐ περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστὴν μᾶλλον δὲ σῶμα
μεριζόμενον εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον) ἔπειτα τί διοίσει
τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς, εἴπερ ἀμ-
φοτέροις ἔ ἔκ τε τῆς ὕλης καὶ τῶν νοητῶν “γέγονεν ἡ ἡ
σύστασις; αὐτός γε μὴν ὁ Ἠλάτων, ὥσπερ ἀπ-
ὠθούμενος" τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν ἐκ σώματος γένεσιν,
ἐντὸς αὐτῆς φησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τεθῆναι τὸ σωμα-
τικὸν εἶτ᾽ ἔξωθεν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνης περικαλυφθῆναι". καὶ

Β ὅλως ἀπεργασάμενος τῷ λόγῳ τὴν ψυχὴν ὕστερον"
ἐπεισάγει τὴν περὶ τῆς ὕλης ὑπόθεσιν, μηδὲν ad-
τῆς πρότερον ὅτε τὴν ψυχὴν ἐγέννα δεηθείς, ὡς
χωρὶς ὕλης γενομένην.

φῳ Ὅμοια δὲ τούτοις ἔστιν a ἀντειπεῖν καὶ τοῖς περὶ
ΠΠοσειδώνιον. οὐ γὰρ μακρὰν τῆς ὕλης ἀπέστη-
1 μὲν -omitted a f, m, r, Escor. 72.
ἢ -U.
3 EK, B; ἀποθέμενος -all other mss.
* περικεκαλυφθῆναι -τ.
ὃ ὕστερος -U.

@ See page 213, note c supra; and Pi: νῦν δ byte sense 866
1024 a infra, Plat. Quaest. 1009 c supra, and J. H. Quincey
(J.H.S., Ixxxvi [1966], p. 149, n. 17) on Moralia 22 r.

> δεξαμενή occurs in Timaeus 53 4 3 (cf. Plutarch, De
Iside 374 3; [Plutarch], De Placitis 882 c=Dox. Graeci,
p. 308 a 4-9 and B 5-9), πανδεχές in Timaeus 51 a 7, and
τιθήνη in Timaeus 49 a 6, 52 v 5, 88 p 6. See pages 185,
note c and 197, note a supra.

¢ This last (cf. De Defectu Orac. 429 8, εἰς πλείονα μέρη
τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ σωματικοῦ μεριζομένου διὰ τὴν σύμφυτον ἀνάγκην
τῆς ἑτερότητος) is implicitly denied by Plato in Temaeus 51 ἃ
4-7, where the receptacle is declared to be ‘‘ not earth or
air or fire or water μήτε ὅσα ἐκ τούτων μήτε ἐξ ὧν ταῦτα yéyovev.””

216

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1023

Plato in the present passage? has used none of the
names for the former (for that it is his custom always
to call receptacle and omnirecipient and nurse,? not
divisible in the case of bodies but rather body that is
divided into particularity ὁ) and secondly wherein
would the generation of the soul differ from that of
the universe if both have had as constituents of their
composition matter and the intelligibles?¢ In any
case, Plato himself, as if warding off from soul the
coming to be out of body, says that the corporeal
was placed by god within her and then enveloped
with her on the outside ὁ; and, quite generally, it is
after having produced the soul in his account that he
introduces in addition the theory about matter,f
having had no need of it before when he was generat-
ing the soul, as it presumably came to be apart from
matter.

22. Similar objections can be made also to Posi-
donius and his followers.’ For they did not withdraw

4 See 1013 s-c and note 6 on 1022 F supra.

¢ Timaeus 34 8 3-4 and 36 p 9-x 3 (cf. Cherniss, Aristotle’s
Criticism of Plato ..., pp. 406-407 and n. 334), and see
supra Plat. Quaest. 1002 B-c with note f there.

7 Plutarch means the account of the receptacle, which is
introduced at Timaeus 48 © 2—49 a 6; but he conveniently
forgets both the earlier treatment of the corporeality of the
universe (31 B 4—32 c 4), to which he had himself referred
at 1016 r—1017 a supra, and the warning about the sequence
given in Timaeus 34 B 10—35 a 1 and quoted by himself
at 1016 a-B supra (cf. Helmer, De An. Proc., p. 15 and
Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato ..., pp. 424-425).

9 For this chapter (=F 141 a [Edelstein-Kidd]) cf.
especially Thévenaz, L’ Ame du Monde, pp. 63-67 and in
P. Merlan’s last extensive treatment, Platonism to Neo-
platonism, pp. 34-58, the bibliography on pp. 55 and 57, to
which add Marie Laffranque, Poseidonios d’ Apamée (Paris,
1964), pp. 373-374, pp. 379-380, and pp. 431-432. The

217

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1023) σαν,᾿ ἀλλὰ δεξάμενοι τὴν τῶν περάτων οὐσίαν περὶ
τὰ σώματα λέγεσθαι μεριστὴν καὶ ταῦτα τῷ νοητῷ
μίξαντες ἀπεφήναντο τὴν ψυχὴν ἰδέαν εἶναι τοῦ
πάντῃ διαστατοῦ κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν συνεστῶσαν ἁρμο-

1 ἀπέστησαν τὴν ψυχήν -Epitome 1080 κ infra.

phrase τοῖς περὶ Ποσειδώνιον (cf. Wyttenbach, Animadver-
stones on De E 385 a) might of itself mean only “ Posidonius ”’
(so Turnebus, Xylander, and Amyot) or only his pupils or
‘ circle” (cf. Laffranque, op. cit., Ὁ. 379, n. 37); but, as by
οἱ περὶ τὸν Kpavropa (1012 τ supra) after of δὲ Kpdvrop.. .
προσέθεντο, μιγνύντι ... (1012 vp supra) Plutarch must have
meant ‘‘ Crantor and his followers,” so here too he probably
meant to refer both to Posidonius himself and to his fol-
lowers. His immediate source for the subsequent Posidonian
interpretation, then, may have been something by one of
those followers such as the work of Phanias (cf. Diogenes
Laertius, vii, 41) or even the work by Eudorus that seems
to have been his source for the interpretations given by
Xenocrates and Crantor (see note c on 1012 © and note ¢
on 1013 B supra; cf. P. Merlan, Philologus, Ixxxix [1934],
p. 211 and Helmer, De An. Proc., p. 17, n. 22). Such use
of a secondary source, however, would not of itself prove that
he did not know the original as well (cf. W. Crénert’s
observation concerning Galen, Gnomon, vi [1930], p. 155).

α 2,6. so interpreting τῆς ad περὶ τὰ σώματα γιγνομένης μερι-
στῆς (οὐσίας) of Timaeus 35 a 2-3, which, contrary to Marie
Laffranque’s assertion (op. cit., p. 379), is tantamount to
saying that the following definition is ‘une glose posi-
donienne du Timée,” though not that it stood in a “ com-
mentary ἢ on the Timaeus. For the controversy about the
existence of such a commentary see L. Edelstein, 4.J/.P.,
lvii (1936), p. 304, n. 72; E. Bickel, Rhein. Mus., N.F. ciii
(1960), pp. 8-10; K. Abel, Rhein. Mus., N.F. νὴ (1964),
pp. 371-373.

> i.e. τὰ πέρατα, “the limits.” Merlan (Platonism to
Neoplatonism, Ὁ. 38) calls this ‘‘ Plutarch’s somewhat care-
less reference to ‘ the substance of the limits,’ ”’ 1.6. τὴν τῶν
περάτων οὐσίαν, and insists that this phrase means “ that
which is within the wépara,” “ the kind of being which * has ’
or ‘ accepts’ limits,’’ οὐσία itself being ‘ the πεπερασμένον

218

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1023

far from matter ; but, having taken divisible in the
case of bodies to mean ¢ the being of the limits and
having mixed these? with the intelligible, they de-
clared the soul to be the idea of what is everyway
extended,° herself constituted according to number

without its limits,’’ that is, in fact, for a Stoic ὕλη. This
cannot be what the phrase meant to Plutarch, however, any
more than τῆς ψυχῆς . - . τὴν οὐσίαν a few lines below means
“the kind of being that ἡ has’ or ‘ accepts’ soul,” for his
first refutation of the Posidonians explicitly assumes that in
their interpretation of the psychogony they use the limits
themselves (τοῖς τῶν σωμάτων πέρασιν [1023 c infra)) and not
any ‘‘ substance of the limits ’’ in Merlan’s sense, while at
the beginning of the next chapter again (1023 p infra) the
two constitutive factors of soul ascribed to them are the
intelligible and the limits tout court (τοῖς πέρασι). Nor does
this leave unexplained, as Merlan contends it would do,
Plutarch’s imputation of “ materialism ”’ to the Posidonians,
for it has already been said in reference to their interpretation
(1014 p supra, page 187, note c) that the nature said in the
Timaeus to become divisible in the case of bodies must not
be held to be μήκη καὶ πλάτη. .. ἃ σώμασι προσήκει Kai
σωμάτων μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐστιν. Whether Plutarch’s im-
putation is justified is another question. He knew that
according to the Stoics limits are incorporeal (De Comm. Not.
1080 κε infra) but probably knew also that, while existing
only in thought for the Stoics (S.V.F. ii, frag. 488), they
exist in reality (καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν) as well for Posidonius (Dio-
genes Laertius, vii, 135); and, since according to the latter
being that is κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν differs from matter only in
thought (Dow. Graeci, p. 458, 10-11), one might reasonably
suppose that for him the limits, which exist in reality, must
also be material.

¢ So much of the definition is identical with that ascribed
by [amblichus to Speusippus (frag. 40 {Lang]); in an
obviously Stoic version it is ascribed to Plato himself
(Diogenes Laertius, iii, 67: ἰδέαν τοῦ πάντῃ διεστῶτος πνεύματος
{ef. ibid. vii, 157: soul is πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον for Posidonius et
al.|); and the first word by itself, zdea, is the Posidonian
definition in the list given by Macrobius (Jn Somnium

219

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1023) νίαν' περιέχοντα" τά τε yap μαθηματικὰ τῶν πρώ-
των νοητῶν μεταξὺ καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν τετάχθαι,
τῆς τε ψυχῆς, τῶν νοητῶν τὸ ἀίδιον καὶ τῶν ᾿αἰσθη-

C τῶν" τὸ παθητικὸν ἐ ἐχούσης, προσῆκον" ἐν μέσῳ τὴν
οὐσίαν ὑπάρχειν. ἔλαθε γὰρ καὶ τούτους ὁ θεὸς
τοῖς τῶν σωμάτων πέρασιν ὕστερον, ἀπειργασμέ-

νῆς ἤδη τῆς ψυχῆς, χρώμενος ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς ὕλης
διαμόρφωσιν, τὸ σκεδαστὸν αὐτῆς καὶ ἀσύνδετον
ὁρίζων καὶ περιλαμβάνων ταῖς ἐκ τῶν τριγώνων
waits μα ἈΘΉ ΕΟ ἐπιφανείαις. ἀτοπώτερον δὲ τὸ"

1 ἁρμονίαν -B and Epitome 1080 F infra; α... νας. δ...
av -Εἰ (ἁμαρτίαν εἶχε : ἁρμονίαν ἢ οὐσίαν -in margin); ἁμαρτίαν
Fe other mss.

2 αἰσθητῶν -E (τῶν over erasure), B; αἰσθητικῶν -all other
MSS.

8 προσῆκον -Mss. and Lpitome 1031 a infra (cf. Philo Jud.,
De Vita Mosis ii, ὃ 69=iv, p. 216, 18-19 [Cohn]) ; προσήκειν
-Bernardakis (cf. 1022 pinfra). * rov-e, u, Escor. 72}.

Scipionis | 1, xiv, 19). That Plutarch took ἐδέα to mean a
Platonic “‘ idea’ is clear from his second refutation (1023 c
infra: ἀτοπώτερον δὲ .. .) : but that it was not so meant is
equally clear if, as he here reports, the soul according to
the Posidonians has her being between the intelligibles and
the perceptibles. The word is used in Timaeus 35 a 7 itself
and not in the sense of *‘ idea ”’ (see 1012 c supra with note
ὁ there), as Plutarch himself knew (see 1025 B infra: ,
τὸ πᾶν... τῆς ψυχῆς εἶδος) ;_ and that passage of the Timaeus
whether directly or through Speusippus is the source of its
use in the Posidonian definition, where, if the exegesis of
Plato was meant to be Posidonian doctrine as well, the mean-
ing intended was “ rational configuration ”’ (cf. Proclus, Jn
Primum Euclidis El. Lib., Ὁ. 148, 8-21 [Friedlein] : .. TOV
λόγον τοῦ σχήματος ...aitiov... τῆς περιοχῆς With L. Edel-
stein, ASF, lil [ 1936], p. 303) of the tridimensional (for
πάντῃ [cf Timaeus 36 © 2: πάντῃ διαπλακεῖσα] -- τριχῇ «7.
Aristotle, De Caelo 268 a 7-10 and 24-28 with Simplicius,
De Caelo, p. 9, 17-29 ; Philo Jud., De Opificio Mundi 36=1,
p. 11, 9-10 [(Cohn]). As to the intention of Speusippus see

220

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1023

that embraces concord,* for (they said) the mathe-
maticals have been ranked between the primary
intelligibles and the perceptibles® and it is an
appropriate thing for the soul likewise, possessing as
she does the everlastingness of the intelligibles and
the passivity of the perceptibles,* to have her being
in the middle.“ In fact these people too failed to
notice that only later, after the soul has already been
produced, does god use the limits of the bodies for
the shaping of matter*® by bounding and circum-
scribing its dispersiveness and incoherence with the
surfaces made of the triangles fitted together.f

Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato ..., pp. 509-511 and
The Riddle, pp. 73-74 with the rejoinder by Merlan, Platon-
ism to Neoplatonism, pp. 40-48 and p. 56.

¢ Cf. lamblichus, De Comm. Math. Scientia, Ὁ. 40, 15-23
(Festa): ... κατ᾽ ἀριθμοὺς ἁρμονίαν περιέχοντας ὑφεστώσης

. and Theolog. Arith., Ὁ. 30, 7-9 (De Falco) = Anatolius,
p. 32, 21-22 (Heiberg)=Sextus, Adv. Math. iv, 8 (p. 723,
17-20 [Bekker]).

ὃ For this doctrine, which Aristotle ascribes to Plato by
name in Metaphysics 987 b 14-18 and 1028 b 19-21, ef.
Cherniss, The Riddle, pp. 75-78 and E. M. Manasse,
Philosophische Rundschau, Beiheft 2 (1961), pp. 96-97 and
pp. 149-156 ; see also note c on Plat. Quaest. 1002 a supra.

¢ See note ὃ on 1013 a supra.

4 Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, Ὁ. 153, 18-19
(Diehl) without reference, however, to the Posidonians or
Speusippus: of μὲν μαθηματικὴν ποιοῦντες τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς
ὡς μέσην τῶν τε φυσικῶν καὶ τῶν ὑπερφυῶν. .. .

¢ Timaeus 53 ὁ 4—56 B 6 (cf. 53 5 4: ... πρῶτον διε-
σχηματίσατο . . .), the fabrication of the soul having been
completed at 36 p 7 (cf. 36 p 8-9). For this argument of
Plutarch’s see the end of the preceding chapter (1023 bn
supra with note f on page 217).

t See Plat. Quaest. 1001 B-c supra with note καὶ there ;
and for τὸ σκεδαστόν See infra 1023 © (= Timaeus 37 a 5-6)
and 1024 a (. . . φερομένης καὶ σκεδαννυμένης . . - ὕλης) and
Plat. Quaest. 1001 pv supra with note ὁ there.

221

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1023) τὴν ψυχὴν ἰδέαν ποιεῖν" ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀεικίνητος"
ἡ δ᾽ ἀκίνητος, καὶ ἡ μὲν ἀμιγὴς πρὸς τὸ αἰσθητὸν ἡ 7
δὲ τῷ" σώματι συνειργμένη. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὁ θεὸς
τῆς μὲν ἰδέας ὡς παραδείγματος γέγονε μιμητὴς
τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ὥσπερ ἀποτελέσματος δημιουργός.

D ὅτι δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὁ Πλάτων τὴν οὐσίαν τίθεται"
τῆς ψυχῆς ἀλλὰ ταττομένην ὑπ᾽ ἀριθμοῦ, προεί-

ρηται.
38. Πρὸς δ᾽ ἀμφοτέρους τούτους κοινόν ἐστι τὸ

μήτε, τοῖς πέρασι μήτε τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς μηδὲν | ἴχνος
ἐνυπάρχειν ἐκείνης τῆς δυνάμεως ἧ τὸ αἰσθητὸν

1 Wyttenbach from ρίξοηιο 1031 infra; εὐκίνητος
-Μ88.

2 τῷ -omitted by f, m, r

3 τίθεται τὴν οὐσίαν -b.

So ey ee ee oS ey EE

¢ See 1013 ὁ supra with note b on page 174.

> Cf. Timaeus 38 a 3 (τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον ἀκινήτως)
and Aristotle, Topics 148 a 20-21 (ἀπαθεῖς yap καὶ ἀκίνητοι

iMG COALS ate

οἰ Cf. Symposium 211 ἘΞ 1-3(... εἰλικρινές, καθαρόν, a ἄμεικτον

..), Phaedrus 247 ς 6-7, and Timaeus 52 ΑἹ -4(.. . οὔτε αὐτὸ
εἰς ἄλλο ποι ἰόν, .. . ἀναίσθητον). The ideas are ἡ separate,”
by which is meant TO ἀμιγὲς πάσης ὕλης καὶ μηδενὶ παθητῷ
συμπεπλεγμένον (Dox. Graeci, p. 304 a 6-8 and B 27-31; ef.
Olympiodorus, In Platonis ’Phaedonem, pp. 103, 25-104, 2
| Norvin]).

a Cf. συνέρξας in Timaeus 34 c 2, quoted in 1016 B supra,
where the soul is mistress of the body, so that the verb here
is not likely, as Thévenaz supposes (L’dme du Monde,
p. 26, n. 121), to refer to the notion that the body is the
prison of the soul, the less so since the envelopment of the
corporeal by the worid-soul has just been emphasized by
Plutarch (1023 a supra with note ὁ there).

e Cf. Timaeus 28 a 6-B 2, 28 ὁ 6—29 a 6, 37 c 6-p 1,
and 39 κε 3-7 with Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 720 B-c.

f See 1014 ¢ and 1016 c supra and 1027 a infra, but
222

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1023

What is more absurd, however, is to make the soul
an idea, for the former is perpetually in motion @ but
the latter is immobile® and the latter cannot mix
with the perceptible® but the former has been
coupled with body ὁ; and, besides, god’s relation to
the idea is that of imitator to pattern? but his
relation to the soul is that of artificer to finished
product.? As to number, however, it has been
stated above 2 that Plato regards the substance of
soul not as number either but as being ordered by
number.

23. It is an argument against both of these in
common,” moreover, that neither in limits nor in
numbers is there any trace of that faculty with which
the soul naturally forms judgments of what is

notice also Plat. Quaest. 1001 c (. .. οὐκ ἔργον ἐστὶ τοῦ θεοῦ
μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ μέρος .. .).

9 In 1018 σὉ supra (see page 175, note c). By this
reference Plutarch cannot mean, as both Helmer (De An.
Proc., Ὁ. 18 [3]) and Thévenaz (L’ Ame du Monde, p. 67)
think he must, that the earlier refutation of Xenocrates is
somehow applicable to the Posidonian definition too, for, as
Thévenaz himself remarks, κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν συνεστῶσαν in this
definition (1023 Β supra) corresponds to κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν συνεστάναι
(1013 p supra), which Plutarch used in refuting the Xeno-
cratean identification of soul with number. He recurs to
Xenocrates now because, as the Posidonian definition unlike
the Xenocratean was obnoxious to the charge of materialism
brought against others in the preceding chapter, so both the
Xenocratean and the Posidonian are open to quite different
objections about to be advanced in the subsequent chapter,
where, as will be seen, the two interpretations are referred
to as distinct despite the common defect imputed to them.

δ i.e. the Posidonians and the Xenocrateans. Thévenaz
(L’Ame du, Monde, p. 27, n. 124) adopts from the Epitome
1031 b the erroneous reading ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις and so can-
not account for κοινόν, which in his translation is omitted or
disguised as “‘ il va dé soi.”’

923

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1023) ἡ ψυχὴ πέφυκε κρίνειν. νοῦν μὲν γὰρ αὐτῇ καὶ
(τὸν νοητὸν" ἡ τῆς νοητῆς μέθεξις ἀρχῆς ἐμπε-
ποίηκε᾽" δόξας δὲ καὶ πίστεις καὶ τὸ φανταστικὸν
καὶ τὸ παθητικὸν" ὑπὸ“ τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα ποιοτή-
των, τοῦτ᾽" οὐκ ἄν τις ἐκ μονάδων οὐδὲ γραμμῶν
οὐδ᾽ ἐπιφανειῶν ἁπλῶς νοήσειεν ἐγγιγνόμενον. καὶ
μὴν οὐ μόνον αἱ τῶν θνητῶν ψυχαὶ" γνωστικὴν τοῦ
αἰσθητοῦ δύναμιν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν τοῦ

K κόσμου φησὶν" ἀνακυκλουμένην αὐτὴν πρὸς ἑαυτήν,
ὅταν οὐσίαν ,“σκεδαστὴν ἔχοντός τινος ἐφάπτηται
καὶ ὅταν ἀμέριστον, λέγειν" κινουμένην διὰ πάσης
ἑαυτῆς, ὅτῳ ic av Tu” ταὐτὸν ἦ καὶ ὅτου τῶν
ἕτερον, πρὸς ὃ τι τε μάλιστα καὶ ὅπῃ καὶ ὅπως"
συμβαίνει κατὰ τὰ γιγνόμενα" πρὸς ἕκαστον

1 «τὸ -added by H. C.

2 mss. and Lpitome 1031 B infra; νοητικὸν -lurnebus ;
νόησιν -Wyttenbach ; but cf. Plat. Quaest. 1002 © supra (τῆς
ἐν ἡμῖν νοητῆς Kat νοερᾶς δυνάμεως) with note ὁ there.
παθητὸν -E (with τ dotted and cross in margin), B.
ὑπὲρ -Y.
τοῦτ᾽ -H. C.; 6-mss.; [6] -deleted by Ditbner.

ἡ τῶν θνητῶν ψυχὴ -e.

7 αἰσθητοῦ -Turnebus (so ὠρτιέοιηε 1031 c); αἰσθητικοῦ
-Μ88.

8 φύσιν -B, ul.

9 λέγειν -e, αι, Escor. 721; λέγῃ -E, B, f, m, r, Escor.
7Qcorr.

10 τι -Wyttenbach from Timaeus 37 a 7 (so Boer: in
Epitome 1031 6) ; τις -Mss.

11 7 ~Stephanus from Timaeus 37 a 7 (so Boot: in Epitome
— )3 MSS.

ὅτου παρ φακλξηίος from Timaeus 37 a 7 (so Ἔθοσες ah

iipstorah 1031 c) ; ὅτῳ -Μ88.

18 ὅπως «καὶ ὁπότεξ ~Pohlenz from Timaeus 37 8 1 (cf. quid
quoque loco aut modo aut tempore -Turnebus).

14 Dibner from Timaeus 37 B 23; xaraywopeva -MSS.; Kal
τὰ γινόμενα -Epitome 1031 c.

224

a oO Pp ὦ

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1023

perceptible. Intelligence and intelligibility have
been produced in her by participation in the in-
telligible principle ὃ ; but opinions and beliefs,° that
is to say what is imaginative and impressionable by
the qualities in body,¢ there is not anyone who could
conceive of this arising in her simply from units or
from lines or surfaces.¢ Now, not only do the souls
of mortal beings have a faculty that is cognizant of
the perceptible ; but he says? that the soul of the
universe also as she is revolving upon herself, when-
ever she touches anything that has being either
dispersed or indivisible, is moved throughout herself
and states of anything’s being the same and different
with regard to whatever it is so precisely the respect
and context and manner of its happening to be or to
have as attribute (either of these) in relation to each

@ Whereas this had been taken into account by Crantor
and his followers, μάλιστα τῆς ψυχῆς ἴδιον ὑπολαμβάνοντες ἔργον
εἶναι τὸ κρίνειν τά τε νοητὰ καὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ. .. (1012 F supra
with note c there on this use of κρίνειν).

ὃ In the account of the Poamionian interpretation (1023
B supra) this would be represented by ταῦτα τῷ νοητῷ μίξαν-
res. With Plutarch’s expression here cf. τοῦ δὲ νοῦ μετέσχεν
ἀπὸ τῆς κρείττονος ἀρχῆς ἐγγενομένου (1026 E infra [chap. 27
sub δεν

¢ Timaeus 37 Β 8 quoted in 1023 & infra.

4 See 1024 a infra: τὴν δοξαστικὴν καὶ φανταστικὴν Kal
συμπαθῆ τῷ αἰσθητῷ κίνησιν.

¢ The ‘ units”’ and the “lines or surfaces’”’ here refer
respectively to the “‘ numbers ”’ of the Xenocratean and the
‘* limits ’’ of the Posidonian interpretations just above (see
1014 p supra with notes ὃ and ὁ there).

7 Timaeus 37 a ὅ-Β 3, from which Plutarch omits
as irrelevant to his argument the καὶ πρὸς τὰ κατὰ ταὐτὰ
ἔχοντα ἀεί (B 3) and so the τε after γιγνόμενα (B 2); but
then he ought also to have omitted the xa! ὅταν ἀμέριστον in
or A.

225

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1023) (ἕκασταλ' εἶναι καὶ πάσχειν. ἐν τούτοις ἅμα καὶ

4

"

1024

τῶν δέκα κατηγοριῶν ποιούμενος ὑπογραφὴν ἔ ἔτι
μᾶλλον τοῖς ἐφεξῆς διασαφεῖ. Ἢ “λόγος ᾿᾽ γάρ φησιν

“ἀληθὴς ὅταν μὲν περὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν γίγνηται καὶ
6 τοῦ" θατέρου κύκλος ὀρθὸς" ἰὼν εἰς πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ
τὴν ψυχὴν διαγγείλῃ, δόξαι καὶ πίστεις “γίγνονται
βέβαιοι καὶ ἀληθεῖς" ὅταν δ᾽ αὖ περὶ τὸ λογιστι-
Kov* ἢ καὶ ὁ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ" κύκλος εὔτροχος ὧν
αὐτὰ μηνύσῃ, ἐπιστήμη" ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀποτελεῖται"
τούτω δ᾽ ἐν ᾧ τῶν ὄντων ἐγγίγνεσθον, ἐάν ποτέ
τις αὐτὸ ἄλλο. πλὴν ψυχὴν προσείπῃ, πᾶν μᾶλλον
ἢ τὸ ἀληθὲς ἐρεῖ. πόθεν οὖν ἔσχεν ἡ ψυχὴ τὴν
ἀντιληπτικὴν τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ δοξαστικὴν ταύτην
κίνησιν, ἑτέραν τῆς νοητικῆς" ἐκείνης καὶ τελευ-
τώσης εἰς ἐπιστήμην, ἔργον εἰπεῖν μὴ θεμένους
βεβαίως ὅτι νῦν οὐχ ἁπλῶς ψυχὴν ἀλλὰ κόσμου
ψυχὴν συνίστησιν ἐξ ὑποκειμένων" τῆς τε κρείτ-
τονος οὐσίας καὶ ἀμερίστου" καὶ τῆς" χείρονος, ἣν

1 Added by Maurommates from Kpitome 1031 c and

Timaeus 37 B 2.

τοῦ -omitted by Εἰ, B.

ὀρθῶς -pcorr.

λογικὸν -r.

τοῦ αὐτοῦ -u.

νοῦς ἐπιστήμη τε -Limaeus 37 c 2.
τοῦτο -E, Bs τούτῳ -u, r, Aldine.
νοητῆς -E_pitome 1031 p.
ὑποκειμένης Epitome 1031 ῃὉ-Ἑ.
Kal τῆς ἀμερίστου τ.

11 τῆς -omitted by f, m, r, Aldine.

Se co =F & Gi Bf Gob

α Cf. Albinus, Epitome vi, 10 (p. 159, 34-35 [Hermann | =
Ρ. 37, 1-2 [Louis]), where they are said to have been adum-
brated by Plato in the Parmenides and elsewhere. A work
by Plutarch entitled Διάλεξις περὶ τῶν δέκα κατηγοριῶν is
No. 192 in the Catalogue of Lamprias.

226

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1023-1024

among the things that come to be. As in these
words he is simultaneously giving an outline of the
ten categories ¢ too, in those that follow he states the
case more clearly still, for he says®: ‘* Whenever
true discourse is concerning itself about the per-
ceptible and the circle of difference running aright
conveys the message through all its soul, there arise
opinions and beliefs steadfast and true ; but, when-
ever on the other hand it is concerned about the
rational and the circle of sameness running smoothly
gives the information, knowledge 5 is of necessity
produced ; and, if anyone ever calls by another name
than soul that one of existing things in which these
two come to be, he will be speaking anything but the
truth.”” Whence, then, did the soul get this motion
that can apprehend what is perceptible and form
opinions of it, a motion different from that which is
intellective and issues in knowledge? It is difficult
to say without steadfastly maintaining that in the
present passage ὦ he is constructing not soul in the
absolute sense but the soul of the universe out of
entities already available, the superior, that is to say
indivisible, being and the inferior, which he has

> Timaeus 37 5 3-c 5, from which Plutarch omits δὲ ὁ
κατὰ ταὐτόν in B 3-4 and γιγνόμενος . . . ἠχῆς in B 4-6 and
reduces νοῦς ἐπιστήμη τε in C 2 to ἐπιστήμη.

¢ By reducing Plato’s νοῦς ἐπιστήμη τε to ἐπιστήμη alone
Plutarch suppresses the embarrassing fact that νοῦς ἀγέρα is
clearly treated as a state of soul and not a transcendent
entity made an ingredient of it (cf. Proclus, Jn Platonis
Timaeum ii, pp. 313, 24-314, 5 [Diehl] and Cherniss,
Aristotle's Criticism of Plato ..., p. 607).

4 This is not the last two passages cited (Timaeus 37 a ὅ-
Β 3 and B 3—c 5) but the central passage under discussion,

Timaeus 35 a 1-8 4 (1012 B-c supra); for νῦν see note a
on 1023 a supra.

227

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1024) περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστὴν. κέκληκεν, οὐχ ἑτέραν

οὖσαν ἢ τὴν δοξαστικὴν καὶ φανταστικὴν καὶ συμ-
παθῆ τῷ αἰσθητῷ, κίνησιν, οὐ γενομένην ἀλλὰ
ὑφεστῶσαν ἀίδιον ὥσπερ ἡ ἑτέρα. τὸ γὰρ νοερὸν
« v7 " 4 Ἁ \ > >
ἡ φύσις ἔχουσα καὶ τὸ δοξαστικὸν εἶχεν ἀλλ
ἐκεῖνο μὲν ἀκίνητον (καὶ) " ἀπαθὲς καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀεὶ
μένουσαν ἱδρυμένον" οὐσίαν τοῦτο δὲ μεριστὸν καὶ
πλανητόν, ἅτε δὴ φερομένης καὶ σκεδαννυμένης
ἐφαπτόμενον ὕλης. οὔτε γὰρ τὸ αἰσθητὸν εἰλήχει
τάξεως ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἄμορφον καὶ ἀόριστον, 7 τε περὶ
τοῦτο τεταγμένη δύναμις οὔτε δόξας" ἐνάρθρους"
1 τῶν αἰσθητῶν -Hpitome 1031 Ἑ.
2 <xai> -supplied by Miiller (1873) from E’pitome 1031 τ.
3 ἱδρυμένην -u, Escor. 72}.
4 δόξαν -u.

> ἀνάρθρους -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.

β τὰς supra 1015 αὶ with note 6 and 1014 b ees Ἢ
there.

> See supra page 209 with notes a to 6 and 1014 c referred
to there.

° ἡ φύσις (called “ wohl corrupt” by B. Miiller [1873]
ad loc.) is used here to designate the precosmic state as it is
in 1015 © supra (οὐδ᾽ ἀρχὰς τῇ φύσει . . . παρέσχεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὔσης
ἐν πάθεσι - . .).

ὦ 2,6. “ἴπε former ” just mentioned, the “ indivisible being ”’
of Timaeus 35 a 1-2; ef. 1024 τὺ infra, where νοῦς Ξε τῷ
ἀμερίστῳ 2. καὶ τῷ μηδαμῇ κινητῷ.

¢ See 1024 c infra: 6 δὲ νοῦς αὐτὸς μὲν . . - μόνιμος ἦν
καὶ ἀκίνητος. Plato says nothing of the kind; but, since
immobility and impassivity are characteristics of the in-
telligible being of the ideas (see page 223 supra with note 4
there), Plutarch, who identifies the indivisible being of the
intelligibles (cf. Plat. Quaest. 1001 p supra: ἡ yap ἀμέριστος
οὐσία... τῶν νοητῶν) With precosmic νοῦς (see the immediately
preceding note), naturally ascribes to the latter these charac-
teristics of the former (see 1016 c supra with note ὁ [τῆς
μονίμου τε Kal ἀρίστης οὐσίας ἐκείνης] and 1026 a infra [τῷ

228

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1024

called divisible in the case of bodies,? this latter
being none other than the opinionative and imagin-
ative motion sensitive to what is perceptible, not
brought into being but having subsisted everlastingly
just like the former.’ For nature ¢ possessing intel-
lectuality ὦ possessed the opinionative faculty also,
the former, however, immobile ὁ (and) impassive /
and settled about the being that always remains
fixed 9 but the latter divisible and erratic inasmuch
as it was in contact with matter, which was in motion
and in dispersion.» The fact is that the perceptible
had not got any portion of order but was amorphous
and indefinite +; and the faculty stationed about this
had neither articulate opinions nor motions that were

περὶ τὰ νοητὰ povinw}). Since at the same time he regards
god as the source of rationality in the soul (see supra 1016 ¢
with note d), he was perhaps not uninfluenced by the Aristo-
telian notion of god as νοῦς ἀκίνητος, which is read into Plato
by Albinus in Epitome x, 2 (p. 57, 5-9 [Louis]=p. 164, 20-
24 [Hermann]). The νοῦς as πρῶτος θεός may have been
called μόνιμος even by Xenocrates, since he identified it with
the μονάς (frag. 15 [Heinze]; and for νοῦς -- μονὰς διὰ τὸ
μόνιμον cf. Alexander, Metaph., p. 39, 14-15 and A. Delatte,
Etudes sur la littérature pythagoricienne [Paris, 1915], p.
167, 3-4).

t See supra 1022 x, page 215, note a.

9 Cf. 1024 pv infra (περὶ τὸ μένον ἀεί) and Plat. Quaest.
1007 bv supra (τὸ vonrov... ἀεὶ μένειν).

hk See supra 1023 c, note f and Plat. Quaest. 1001 pb, note
ὃ with the references there. The combination of μεριστὸν καὶ
πλανητόν here (the former referring to σκεδαννυμένης, the
latter to φερομένης) recalls the identification as precosmic
disorderly soul of both the divisible being and the necessity
of the Timaeus (1014 p-£ supra), since the latter is called
a πλανωμένη αἰτία (Timaeus 48 a 6-7).

* For the confusion involved in speaking of ‘‘ the per-
ceptible ’’ and of “‘ corporeality ’’ (just below) in this pre-
cosmic state taken literally see page 184, note c supra.

229

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1024) οὔτε κινήσεις ἁπάσας elye’ τεταγμένας ἀλλὰ τὰς
πολλὰς ἐνυπνιώδεις καὶ παραφόρους καὶ ταρατ-
τούσας τὸ σωματοειδές, ὅσα μὴ κατὰ τύχην τῷ
βελτίονι περιέπιπτεν" ἐν μέσῳ γὰρ ἦν ἀμφοῖν καὶ
πρὸς ἀμφότερα συμπαθῆ καὶ συγγενῆ φύσιν εἶχε,
τῷ μὲν αἰσθητικῷ τῆς ὕλης ἀντεχομένη τῷ δὲ
κριτικῷ τῶν νοητῶν.

24, Οὕτω δέ πως καὶ αὐτὸς" διασαφεῖ τοῖς ὀνό-
μασιν" “ οὗτος "γάρ φησι ‘ παρὰ τῆς ἐμῆς ψήφου
λογισθεὶς ἐν κεφαλαίῳ δεδόσθω λόγος, ὄν τε καὶ

C χώραν καὶ γένεσιν εἶναι τρία τριχῇ καὶ πρὶν οὐ-
ρανὸν γενέσθαι. χώραν τε γὰρ καλεῖ τὴν ὕλην

1 (in margin), B; ἔχουσα -all other mss., Aldine,
Epitome 1031 κε.

2 Τ]λάτων ~-Hpitome 1032

« Cf. in 1026 x infra the period ἐν 7 τὸ μὲν φρόνιμον ...
καταδαρθάνει . . . and De Facie 944 Ἐ-Ε, where the substance
of soul from which νοῦς has been separated is said to retain
ἴχνη τινὰ βίου καὶ ὀνείρατα.

> See 1015 © supra (τὴν ὕλην... ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνοήτου ταρατ-
τομένην αἰτίας) with note g there,
¢ Cf. Timaeus 69 Β 6 (. .. οὔτε τούτων, ὅσον μὴ τύχῃ, τι

μετεῖχεν ...), referring to the ἴχνη of Timaeus 53 8 quoted
by Plutarch in 1016 EP supra.

¢ The subject of ἐν μέσῳ ἦν as of the preceding περιέπιπτεν
must be the precosmic disorderly soul, the δοξαστικὴ καὶ φαντα-
στικὴ - - -- κίνησις identified by Plutarch with ἡ ἡ περὶ τὰ σώματα
eae, οὐσία of Timaeus 35 a (see also 1024 ς infra : τὴν ἐν
μεταβολαῖς καὶ κινήσεσιν οὐσίαν ... μεταξὺ τεταγμένην ... μεριστὴ
προσηγορεύθη . . .), though in the Timaeus it is not this being
that is ἐν μέσῳ ‘but rather that produced by. the demiurge
between it and indivisible being to be the οὐσία that is an
ingredient of soul. See the next note infra.

“ Though τὸ κριτικόν can refer to the exercise of αἴσθησις
as well as of νοῦς (see 1024 x infra with note 6 there), here
it can mean only the latter, for it is explicitly distinguished

230

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1024

all orderly, but most of them were dreamlike ὦ and
deranged and were disturbing corporeality ὃ save in so
far as it would by chance encounter that which is the
better,¢ for it was intermediate between the two 4
and had a nature sensitive and akin to both, with its
perceptivity laying hold on matter and with its
discernment on the intelligibles.¢ |

24. In terms that go something like this he states
the case clearly himself, for he says 7: “‘ Let this be
he account rendered in summation as reckoned from
my calculation, that real existence and space and
becoming were three and distinct” even before
heaven came to be.’ Now, it is matter that he calls

from τῷ αἰσθητικῷ and moreover κριτήριον τοῦ νοητοῦ μόνον ἐστὶν
ὁ νοῦς (Plat. Quaest. 1002 ἢ supra). ‘Thus Plutarch’s precos-
mic disorderly soul, though called ἀνόητος (1014 ὁ and 1015 Ἐ
supra) and just distinguished (1024 a supra) as τὸ δοξαστικόν
from the precosmic νοερόν, which comes to the former he
maintains only by the action of god in the psychogony (see
1016 c supra [τῷ αἰσθητικῷ τὸ νοερὸν .. . ad’ αὑτοῦ παρασχὼν
.-]3 ef. 1026 & infra [τοῦ δὲ νοῦ μετέσχεν ἀπὸ τῆς κρείττονος

ἀρχῆς ἐγγενομένου), is here given the intermediate position
that properly belongs to the ** created ”’ soul (see the immedi-
ately preceding note) and with it the faculty of νοῦς that it
should not have at all until] after the psychogony. Similarly
it is said in the next chapter (1024 c infra) to disperse in this
world the semblances of the intelligible ideas, which in its
context shows that the attempt to interpret literally the
“ἢ precosmic chaos ”’ of Timaeus 52 p—53 B was what con-
strained Plutarch here to contradict his own literal interpre-
tation of the psychogony by ascribing to his precosmic dis-
orderly soul characteristics proper according to his own
account only to the “ὁ created ”’ soul.

7 Cf. P. Shorey, Class. Phil., xvii (1922), pp. 261-262 on
Euthydemus 304 Ἑ.

σ Timaeus 52 Ὁ 2-4.

λ Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, Ὁ. 358, 11-12
(Diehl): ὅταν λέγῃ τρία ταῦτα εἶναι χωρίς... ..

231

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

σ Ὁ » Ψ \
(1024) womep ἕδραν ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ ὑποδοχήν, dv δὲ τὸ
/ ’ \ a ,ὔ v4
vonTov, γένεσιν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου μήπω γεγονότος
3 Υ Μ aN \ 2 -
οὐδεμίαν ἄλλην ἢ τὴν ἐν μεταβολαῖς καὶ κινήσεσιν
οὐσίαν, τοῦ τυποῦντος καὶ τοῦ τυπουμένου μεταξὺ
τεταγμένην, διαδιδοῦσαν' ἐνταῦθα τὰς ἐκεῖθεν εἰ-
’ / ἃ “A : \ ,
Kovas. διά τε δὴ ταῦτα μεριστὴ προσηγορεύθη
ἌΝ ~ 3 ~ A > / \ ~
καὶ ὅτι τῷ αἰσθητῷ τὸ αἰσθανόμενον καὶ TH φαν-
ἴω \ / 3 ᾿ 4 /
ταστῷ τὸ φανταζόμενον ἀνάγκη συνδιὰνέμεσθαι
\ , € A > ἊΝ , 0 7
Kal συμπαρήκειν' ἡ yap αἰσθητικὴ κίνησις, ἰδία
ψυχῆς οὖσα, κινεῖται πρὸς τὸ αἰσθητὸν ἐκτός" ὁ δὲ
ἜΝ mits 1 979 € A2 , s TT Te.
νοῦς αὐτὸς μὲν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ" μόνιμος ἦν Kat ἀκίνητος,

1 διαδοῦσαν -Τ.
2, Bee, us ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ -f, m, r, Kscor. 72, Aldine.

α See note ¢ on page 184 supra.

> Cf. Timaeus 52 a 1-4 with c ὅτ 1, 48 & 5-6, 27 p 6—
2BA 4.

¢ Taking Timaeus 52 p—53 B literally, Plutarch had to
identify the precosmic soul that he posited with one of the
three alone there named as being “‘ before heaven came to
be.” Of these there remained to him only γένεσις. and he
may even have thought this identification supported by
ψυχὴν . . . τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν Of Laws 896 a 5-3 1 and 899 ὁ
6-7 (see 1013 F supra with note a there). Yet he must have
understood that γένεσις in the Timaeus is not an entity
transmitting to this world or dispersing in it the semblances
of the other but is itself τὰ γιγνόμενα, the “ offspring” of
the intelligible and the receptacle and only in this sense
something “‘ between’? them (cf. Timaeus 50 c ὕ- 4), for
this is the conception that he elsewhere himself ascribes to
Plato (De Iside 373 π [ὁ μὲν οὖν Πλάτων τὸ μὲν νοητὸν . ..
πατέρα, τὴν δὲ ὕλην καὶ μητέρα... καὶ χώραν γενέσεως, τὸ δ᾽

232

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1024

space, as he sometimes calls it abode and receptacle,¢
and the intelligible that he calls real existence ὃ ; and
what he calls becoming, the universe not yet having
come to be, is nothing other than that being involved
in changes and motions which, ranged between what
makes impressions and what receives them, disperses
in this world the semblances from that world yonder. °
lor this very reason it was called divisible ὦ and also
because it is necessary for that which is perceiving and
that which is forming mental images to be divided in
correspondence with what is perceptible and with
what is imaginable and to be coextensive with them,?
for the motion of sense-perception, which is the
500} 5 own,f moves towards what is perceptible with-
out 9 but the intelligence, while it was abiding and
immobile all by itself,” upon having got into the soul

ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἔκγονον καὶ γένεσιν ὀνομάζειν εἴωθεν] and 372 F [εἰκὼν
γάρ ἐστιν οὐσίας ἐν ὕλῃ γένεσις .. .]). In any case, Plutarch’s
precosmic soul, here identified with γένεσις, is irrational ; and
his giving it access to the intelligible world is an inconsist-
ency resulting from his attempt to account for the “‘ traces ”’
and “ modifications ’’ in the chaos of Timaeus 52 p—53 Β as
literally precosmic (see note 6 on 1024 8 supra).

4 i.e. Timaeus 35 a, where, however, the μεριστὴ οὐσία
is explicitly not μεταξὺ τεταγμένη (See note ὦ on 1024 B
supra).

¢ See 1024 a supra (μεριστὸν . .. ἅτε . . . σκεδαννυμένης
ἐφαπτόμενον ὕλης) and cf. Simplicius, De An., p. 45, 8-10 ;
for the term συμπαρήκειν cf. Boethus in Simplicius, Categ.,
p. 434, 3-4.

f Because τὴν . . - συμπαθῆ τῷ αἰσθητῷ κίνησιν iS ἁπλῶς
ψυχή (1024 a supra; cf. ψυχὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν in 1014 Ὁ-Ὲ supra).

σ Cf. [Plutarch], De Placitis 899 r= Dox. Graeci, p. 394 a
15-20; Porphyry, Sententiae xliii (pp. 41, 24-42, 1 and 42,
13-14 [Mommert])=Stobaeus, Eel. i, 48, 5 (pp 313, 15-17
and 314, 5-7 [Wachsmuth]).

» See note ὁ on 1024 a supra.

233

(1024)

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

) ἐγγενόμενος δὲ τῇ ψυχῆ καὶ κρατήσας εἰς ἑαυτὸν
ἐπιστρέφει καὶ συμπεραίνει τὴν ἐγκύκλιον φορὰν
περὶ τὸ μένον ἀεὶ μάλιστα ψαύουσαν τοῦ ὄντος.
διὸ καὶ δυσανάκρατος ἡ κοινωνία γέγονεν αὐτῶν,
τῷ ἀμερίστῳ τὸ μεριστὸν καὶ τῷ μηδαμῇ κινη-
τῷ" τὸ πάντῃ φορητὸν μιγνύουσα καὶ καταβιαζο-
μένη" θάτερον εἰς ταὐτὸν" συνελθεῖν. ἦν δὲ τὸ
θάτερον οὐ κίνησις," ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ταὐτὸνἷ στάσις,
ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴ διαφορᾶς καὶ ἀνομοιότητος. ἑκάτερον
γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑτέρας ἀρχῆς κάτεισι, τὸ μὲν ταὐτὸν
ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὸ δὲ θάτερον" ἀπὸ τῆς δυάδος" καὶ
μέμικται πρῶτον ἐνταῦθα περὶ τὴν ψυχήν, ἀριθ-

K pots καὶ λόγοις συνδεθέντα καὶ μεσότησιν ἐναρμο-

1 τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ -U; τὸ ἀεὶ -f. 2 τὸν -e, u, Escor. 721,
3 κινητὸν -F.

Ξ καταβιβαζομένη ἡ

ὅ ταὐτὸ -ii}, Β1 (ν superscript -E}, B4), r.

6

ἦν δὲ τὸ θάτερον ov κίνησις “margin of Εἰ (τὸ omitted) and
of im‘; Epitome 1032 c; ἦν δὲ τὸ ἕτερον κίνησις -E (οὐκ ἦν in
margin -E}, ἡ superscript between ν and «x -E? )3 οὐκ (two

_ dots over ce ἦν δὲ TO ἕτερον ue κίνησις -Β ; ἦν δὲ τὸ θάτερον ἡ

κίνησις -e, u, f, m, T, Escor. 72 » Aldine.
? ὥσπερ δὲ ταὐτὸν (ὥσπερ δὲ οὐ ταὐτὸν in margin) -f, τὰ :
ὥσπερ, δὴ ταὐτὸν (οὐ ταὐτὸν in margin) -r.
τὸ δὲ ἕτερον -E, Β (θάτερον in margin -B?).

«866 Plat. Quaest. 1003 a with note ὁ there for κρατήσασα

. ἐπέστρεψεν used of the rational soul’s action upon the
motions of matter. Similar language to describe the influ-
ence of god upon the world-soul and its νοῦς is used by
Albinus in Epitome x, 3 and xiv, 3 (pp. 59, 5-7 and 81, 4-9
[Louis}=pp. 165, 1-3 and 169, 30-35 [Hermann]}), with
which cf. also Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 226, 8-9
(Wrobel)=p. 205, 1-2 (Waszink).

> Cf. Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 147, 15-18
(Friedlein). For περὶ TO μένον ἀεὶ see 1024 a, ‘note g supra,
and for the ‘ circular motion ᾽ see Plat. Quaest. 1004 c
with note d there.

234

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1024

and taken control makes her turn around to him 4
and with her accomplishes about that which always
remains fixed the circular motion most closely in
contact with real existence.? This is also why the
union of them proved to be a difficult fusion, being a
mixing of the divisible with the indivisible ὁ and of
the altogether transient with the utterly immobile
and a constraining of difference to unite with same-
ness. Difference is not motion, however, as same-
ness is not rest either,4 but the principle of dif-
ferentiation and dissimilitude.? In fact, each of the
two derives from another of two principles, sameness
from the one and difference from the dyad‘; and it
is first here in the soul that they have been com-
mingled, bound together by numbers and ratios and

¢ In Timaeus 35 a (see 1012 c supra) δύσμικτον is used
not of the “‘ divisible ’’ or the “‘ indivisible’ but of “ differ-
ence ’’ alone, and this Plutarch himself later emphasizes and
defends just after having distinguished the “ divisible ” and
the “indivisible”? from “ difference’? and ‘“ sameness ”
(1025 5-Ὁ infra).

4 See supra 1013 Ὁ with notes f and g there; ἦν here is
the *‘ philosophical imperfect.”

¢ Cf. 1025 c infra (τὸ μὲν ταὐτὸν ἰδέα τῶν ὡσαύτως ἐχόντων
ἐστὶ τὸ δὲ θάτερον τῶν διαφόρως ... .) and De Defectu Orac. 428 c
(ἡ τοῦ ἑτέρου δύναμις . . . ἐνείργασται . . . τὰς . - - ἀνομοιότητας).

7 Cf. Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio τι, xvii, 1
(p. 109, 2-6 [Hoche]) and on this passage Philoponus,
B, ve, lines 12-15 (Hoche) and Asclepius, 1, in, lines 17-19
(Taran); Moderatus in Porphyry, Vita Pythagorae, 49-50
(p. 44, 8-18 [Nauck]); Plutarch, De Garrulitate 507 a
(ἡ δὲ δυὰς ἀρχὴ διαφορᾶς ἀόριστος). With the derivation from
these principles introduced here and reflected in the reference
to “ dyadic ” and “‘ monadic ” parts in 1025 pb infra Plu-
tarch comes near to giving soul an arithmetical character
not unlike that to which he objects in the Xenocratean inter-
pretation (1013 c-p and 1023 c-p [chap. 22 sub finem] supra).
See similarly note 6 on 1025 a infra.

235

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1024) vious, καὶ ποιεῖ" θάτερον μὲν ἐγγενόμενον τῷ ταὐτῷ

διαφορὰν τὸ δὲ ταὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ τάξιν, ὡς δῆ-
λόν ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς πρώταις τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεσιν' εἰσὶ
δὲ αὗται τὸ κριτικὸν καὶ τὸ κινητικόν." 7 μὲν οὖν
κίνησις εὐθὺς ἐπιδείκνυται περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν
μὲν" τῇ ταὐτότητι τὴν ἑτερότητα τῇ περιφορᾷ τῶν
ἀπλανῶν" ἐν δὲ τῇ ἑτερότητι τὴν ταὐτότητα τῇ τάξει
τῶν πλανήτων". ἐπικρατεῖ γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις τὸ ταὐ-
τὸν ἐν δὲ τοῖς περὶ γῆν τοὐναντίον. ἡ δὲ κρίσις"
ἀρχὰς μὲν ἔχει δύο, τόν τε νοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ
πρὸς τὰ καθόλου καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου
πρὸς τὰ καθ᾽ τάδ HGH de λόγος ἐξ ap-

1 ποῖ -Y. 2 κινητόν -U. ev δὲ -f, m, r, Aldine.

4 ἀπλανῶν -Mss.; under this iis πλανητῶν -E}, and in
margin as correction -B?.

5 τῶν πλανήτων -Epitome 1032 Ὁ: trav... vac.6... -E,
B; τῶν ἀπλανῶν -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine; τῶν A et i
-f, τὴ, r. 6 κίνησις -u, Aldine.

? τοῦ -E! (added superscript), B, Epitome 1032 pb;
omitted by all other mss. and Aldine.

α Not ‘‘ harmonic,” for which Plutarch uses the regular
technical expression, ἁρμονικὴ μεσότης, and which he knows
is only one of the two means used in Timaeus 36 a (see
.. 1019 p and 1028 a infra) ; see page 175 supra with note c
there on ἀριθμῷ καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἁρμονίᾳ.

ὃ Cf. 1025 τ and 1027 a (τῇ δὲ ταὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ ἑτέρου δυνάμει
τάξιν. .. καὶ διαφορὰν... .) infra ; and for another use
of the distinction between difference in sameness and same-
ness in difference cf. Porphyry, Sententiae xxxvi and xxxvii
(p. 31, 1-9 and pp. 32, 15-33, 8 [Mommert]) and Marius
Victorinus, Adv. Arium i, 48, 22-28 (Henry-Hadot).

¢ Cf. Aristotle, De Anima 432 a 15-17.

4 Cf. De Virtute Morali 441 Ἐ-τ. In Timaeus 36 c 4-Ὁ 7
the single and undivided outer revolution, into which all the
“ fixed stars’ are set (40 a 2-8 6), is called the motion of
sameness; and the inner revolution of seven circles, un-
equal and with speeds different but rationally related (and

236

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1024

harmonious means,* and that difference come to be
in sameness produces differentiation but sameness in
difference order,? as is clear in the case of the soul’s
primary faculties. These are the faculties of discern-
ment and motivity.¢ Now, directly in the heaven
motion exhibits diversity in identity by the revolution
of the fixed stars and identity in diversity by the
order of the planets, for in the former sameness pre-
dominates but its opposite in the things about the
earth.? Discernment, however, has two principles,’
intelligence proceeding from sameness to universals
and sense-perception from difference to particulars‘ ;

so “‘ ordered ”’), into each of which one of the planets is set
(38 c 7-Ὁ 1), is called the motion of difference. All these
circles, however, are homogeneous in constitution (35 B 1-3
and 36 B 5—-c 4); and their designations are not meant to
distinguish as their respective constituents the sameness and
difference that were ingredients in the blending of soul (so
apparently “‘ Timaeus Locrus”’ 96 c [. . . τάπερ aifépia...
τὰ μὲν Tas ταὐτῶ φύσιος εἶμεν τὰ δὲ τᾶς τῶ ἑτέρω.}) or to
indicate any predominance of one or the other of the latter
in each of the two revolutions such as Plutarch here assumes
and for which even Proclus tries to account though re-
cognizing that the constitution of the two revolutions is
homogeneous (Jn Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 253, 23-255,
8 and p. 255, 13-16 [Diehl]).

e Cf. Aristotle, De Anima 432 a 16 (. .. τῷ τε κριτικῷ [See
note ὁ supra] ὃ διανοίας ἔργον ἐστὶ καὶ αἰσθήσεως) and see supra
1012 ¥, note c and 1023 pb, note ἃ on κρίνειν. With ἀρχὰς...
δύο here cf. Albinus, Epitome iv, 4 (p. 13, 14-15 [Louis]=p.
154, 28-29 [Hermann]).

! Cf. Timaeus 37 8 6—c 3 (1023 Ἐ-Ὸ supra), where from
the reports of the circle of sameness concerning the rational
and of the circle of difference concerning the perceptible
arise respectively knowledge and opinion; but the char-
acters of these circles Plutarch here, as in the preceding
sentence (see note ὦ supra), equates with the sameness and
difference that are ingredients of soul, Jor universals as

237

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1024) pot, νόησις ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς καὶ δόξα γιγνόμενος ἐν

1025

" ἢ θ Maki Wiese V1 ,
τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὀργάνοις τε μεταξὺ φαντασίαις τε
A , 2 , e \ \ > ~ A
καὶ μνήμαις" χρώμενος, WY τὰ μὲν EV TH ταὐτῷ
δι : ἐν Ἁ ϑυνϑ δ ὡς δ ἐνῷ ~ A 3 ’ »
τὸ ἕτερον τὰ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ποιεῖ τὸ ταὐτόν. ἔστι
A ἐ 4 “- -
γὰρ ἡ μὲν νόησις κίνησις τοῦ νοοῦντος περὶ τὸ
/ ς \ / \ “A > a εἰ \
μένον, ἡ δὲ δόξα μονὴ τοῦ αἰσθανομένου περὶ τὸ
Φ / \ A / A
κινούμενον. φαντασίαν δὲ συμπλοκὴν δόξης πρὸς
wv > e > 4 \ 5 \ \ Α
αἴσθησιν οὖσαν ἵστησιν ἐν μνήμῃ τὸ ταὐτὸν τὸ δὲ

1 τε καὶ μεταξὺ -Aldine; τε ταῖς μεταξὺ -Stephanus.
2 γνώμαις -Y.

the objects of knowledge or intelligence contrasted to par-
ticulars as the objects of sense-perception see 1025 © infra
(... νοεῖν μὲν ἐκεῖνα ταῦτα δ᾽ αἰσθάνεσθαι ...) and cf. Aristotle,
De Anima 417 Ὁ 22-23 and Physics 189 a 5-8: Areius
Didymus, Hpitomes Frag. Phys. 16 (Dox. Graeci, Ὁ. 456,
9-12); Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El, Lib., p. 30, 11-15
(Friedlein).

α i.e. the λόγος of Timaeus 37 8 3 (ratio in Cicero, Timaeus
28, p. 177, 2 [Plasberg] and motus rationabilis in Chalcidius,
Platonis Timaeus, p. 172, 11 and 19-21 [Wrobel]=p. 153,

16 and 23-25 [Waszink]), which there, however, means

δ" discourse’? (see 1023 © supra) but discourse which is
articulate thought (cf. Theaetetus 189 © 6-7 and Sophist
263 πὶ 3-6).

> Of. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 255, 2-24 and
ii, p. 299, 16-24 (Diehl); and cf. also the διττὸς λόγος of
Albinus, Hpitome iv, 3 (p. 18, 8-11 [Louis]=p. 154, 22-25
{Hermann]) with the duplex virtus of the rational part of the
soul in Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 198, 22-26 (Wrobel)
=p. 177, 14-17 (Waszink).

ὁ For the connexion of μνήμη and φαντασία cf. Aristotle,
De Memoria 450 a 22-25 and 451 a 14-17; with ὀργάνοις cf.
Plutarch, frag. xv (vii, p. 111, 12-14 [Bernardakis])=frag.
23, 9-11 (Sandbach) and Adv. Colotem 1119 a (τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ

238

GENERATION OF THE SOUT, 1024-1025

and reason @ is a blend of both, becoming intellection
in the case of the intelligibles and opinion in the case
of the perceptibles ® and employing between them
mental images and memories as instruments,’ of
which the former are produced by difference in same-
ness and the latter by sameness in difference. For
intellection is motion of what is cognizing about what
remains fixed,? and opinion fixity of what is per-
ceiving about what is in motion’; but mental
imagining, which is a combination of opinion with
sense-perception,’ is brought to a stop in memory

. . . ὄργανα τῆς τούτου δυνάμεως) : and with μεταξύ cf.
Plotinus, /nn. tv, iv, 13, line 18 and Proclus, In Primum
Kuclidis Εἰ. Lib., Ὁ. 52, 10-21 (Friedlein).

4 The antecedent of ὧν τὰ pev... τὰ δ᾽ is not, as Thévenaz
thought (L’ Ame du Monde, pp. 29 and 81), rots νοητοῖς...
τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς but φαντασίαις τε καὶ μνήμαις treated as neuter
because οὗ ὀργάνοις. Their dependence upon difference and
sameness is explained in the second half of the next sentence,
as was that of νοῦς and αἴσθησις in the preceding one (page
937, note f). The whole of this exposition has to do with the
réles of sameness and difference not in the existence of in-
telligibles and perceptibles but in the constitution of the
soul’s faculties (see 1024 © supra).

¢ See 1024 p supra with note ὁ there; and cf. Aristotle,
De Anima 407 a 20-22 (on the Timaeus): νοῦ μὲν yap κίνησις
νόησις. «ἢ.

7 Contrast τὸ δοξαστικὸν . . . πλανητόν, ἅτε δὴ φερομένης . ..
ἐφαπτόμενον ὕλης (1024 a supra) and τῷ αἰσθητῷ τὸ αἰσθανόμενον
... ἀνάγκη . .. συμπαρήκειν (1024 c supra) ; but of. δόξαι...
βέβαιοι of Timaeus 37 B 8 (1023 © supra) and the interpre-
tation by Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 310, 5-10 (Diehl).

9 Cf. Aristotle, De Anima 428 a 25-26 (οὐδὲ συμπλοκὴ
δόξης καὶ αἰσθήσεως) against Plato, Sophist 264 B 1-2 (σύμμειξις
αἰσθήσεως καὶ δόξης), where δόξα means “ἡ judgment,’’ how-
ever, διανοίας ἀποτελεύτησις:, in distinction from its meaning in
Timaeus 37 Β 8 (cf. Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam i, pp.
262, 25-263, 8 [Kroll}).

239

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1025) θάτερον' κινεῖ πάλιν ἐν διαφορᾷ" τοῦ πρόσθεν καὶ

νῦν, ἑτερότητος ἅμα καὶ ταὐτότητος ἐφαπτομέ-
vy.

25. Δεῖ δὲ τὴν περὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κόσμου γενο-
μένην σύντη ξιν'" εἰκόνα λαβεῖν τῆς ἀναλογίας ἐν ἢ
διηρμόσατο" ψυχήν." ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἦν ἄκρα TO’ πῦρ
καὶ ἡ" γῆ, χαλεπὴν" πρὸς “ἄλληλα κραθῆναι φύσιν
ἔχοντα μᾶλλον δὲ ὅλως ἄκρατον καὶ ἀσύστατον'
ὅθεν ἐν μέσῳ θέμενος αὐτῶν τὸν μὲν ἀέρα πρὸ τοῦ
πυρὸς τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ πρὸ τῆς γῆς, ταῦτα πρῶτον ἀλ-
λήλοις ἐκέρασεν. εἶτα διὰ τούτων ἐκεῖνα πρός τε
ταῦτα καὶ πρὸς" " ἄλληλα συνέμιξε καὶ συνήρμοσεν.
ἐνταῦθα δὲ πάλιν τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ τὸ θάτερον, ἐναν-

1 τὸ δὲ ἕτερον -Ε, Β. ἐκ διαφορᾶς -U.
3. ἐφαπτομένην -B. Miiller (1873) ; i -MSS.

᾿ σύνταξιν -r, Epitome 1032 Ἐπ. 5 διηρμήσατο -e, U.
6

«τὴν» ψυχήν -Bernardakis (vi, p. 531: Addenda) from
ΕΘΗ 1032 E.
7 ἄκρα τὸ -Wyttenbach from Epitome 1039 Ἑ: ἄκρατον
-MSS, 8 ἡ -omitted by f. 9. χαλεπὸν -r.
i πρὸς ΣΝ ΕΣ κὶ in Epitome 1032 x.
11 τὸ ἕτερον -Ἐὶ, B.

“ Cf. Aristotle, De Memoria 451 a 14-16 (μνήμη.
φαντάσματος ... ἕξις ) and 450 a 27—b 11 with Themistius
(Sophonias), Parva Nat., P. 5, 13 ad loc. (μνήμη δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ
ταύτης 150]. φαντασίας] μονὴ καὶ σωτηρία). For μνήμη referred
to μονή ef. Plato, Cratylus 437 B 3 and the note on the Stoic
definition i in De Comm. Not. 1085 a infra, μνήμας δὲ μονίμους
kat σχετικὰς τυπώσεις (= φαντασίας).

> As Thévenaz observed (D’ Ame du Monde, p p.: 82),
ἵστησιν ... τὸ ταὐτὸν τὸ δὲ θάτερον κινεῖ (cf. τῇ ἑτέρου δυνάμει

. μεταβολὴν . .. in 1027 a infra) asserts what Plutarch
criticized Xenocrates for asserting (see supra page 167,
note a and 1013 Ὁ with notes fand g). For a similar incon-
sistency see note f on 1024 ἢ supra.

¢ Cf. Aristotle, De Memoria 449 b 22-30, 450 a 19-22,

240

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1025

by sameness? and by difference again set moving?
in the distinction of past and present,° as it is in
contact with diversity and identity at once.

25. The fusion ὦ that was carried out in the case of
the body of the universe must be taken as a likeness
of the proportion with which he ὁ regulated soul. In
the former case, because there were extremes, fire
and earth, of a nature difficult to blend together or
rather utterly immiscible and incohesive, he accord-
ingly put between them air in front of the fire and
water in front of the earth and blended these with
each other first and then by means of these com-
mingled and conjoined those extremes with them and
with each other.f And in the latter case again he

and 452 Ὁ 28-29; and the Stoic definition of memory men-
tioned by Plutarch, De Sollertia Animalium 961 c.

ἃ For the noun σύντηξις in this sense cf. Proclus (com-
menting on Timaeus 43 a 3), In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 321,
14-19 and p. 323, 9-12 (Diehl), where the erroneous variant
σύνταξ- appears in some ss. also.

ὁ 4,6. god, the demiurge; cf. ἐν μέσῳ θέμενος in the next
sentence infra with ὁ θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ θείς of Timaeus 32 πὶ 4.

7 Timaeus 32 8 3-7. The“ blending ᾽᾿ and “ mingling ”’ of
Plutarch’s interpretation here (cf. also De Fortuna Romano-
rum 316 ἘΓῈ and the role assigned to air between fire
and water in De Primo Frigido 951 p-£) are entirely ab-
sent from Timaeus 31 B 4—32 c 4; and the reason given
there for inserting two means between the extremes of fire
and earth is purely mathematical (see 1016 r—1017 a supra),
as it remains in “'Timaeus Locrus” 99 a-s and Albinus,
Epitome xii, 2 (pp. 69, 14-71, 4 [Louis]=p. 167, 25-32
[Hermann]). For other “ physical” interpretations cf.
Theon Smyrnaeus, Ὁ. 97, 8-12 (Hiller); Macrobius, Jn
Somnium Scipionis 1, vi, 23-34 (n.b. permiscert in 24) ;
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 86, 10-88, 7 (Wrobel)=
pp. 71, 24-73, 4 (Waszink); Proclus, /n Platonis Timaeum
ii, pp. 39, 14-42, 2 (Diehl); Philoponus, De Aeternitate
Mundi xiii, 13 (pp. 514, 24-516, 23 [Rabe]) and In Nico-

241

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

’ , y 3 , 9 4
(1025) τίας δυνάμεις καὶ ἀκρότητας ἀντιπάλους, συνήγα-
: 5 \ Scie Stee , es
γεν ov διὰ αὑτῶν,᾽ ἀλλ᾽ οὐσίας ἑτέρας μεταξύ, τὴν
\ > / A “. lon A “-
μὲν ἀμέριστον πρὸ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ" πρὸ δὲ τοῦ θατέ-
\ # 3 ex
ρου" τὴν μεριστήν, ἔστιν ἧ προσήκουσαν ἑκατέραν
ἑκατέρᾳ τάξας εἶτα μιχθείσαις" ἐκείναις ἐπεγκεραν-
νύμενος, οὕτως τὸ πᾶν συνύφηνε᾽ τῆς ψυχῆς
> e Ss > / 5 / ¢ 4
εἶδος, ws ἦν ἀνυστόν, ἐκ διαφόρων ὅμοιον ἔκ TE
πολλῶν ἕν ἀπειργασμένος.Σ οὐκ εὖ δέ τινες εἰρῆ-
4 7 ς \ “- is \
σθαι λέγουσι δύσμικτον ὑπὸ τοῦ WAdtwvos τὴν
θ , , ) xO s χὰ 7 ν. 3
ατέρου φύσιν, οὐκ ἄδεκτον οὖσαν ἀλλὰ καὶ φίλην
Ο μεταβολῆς" μᾶλλον δὲ τὴν τοῦ" ταὐτοῦ, μόνιμον καὶ
δυσμετάβλητον οὖσαν, οὐ ῥᾳδίως προσίεσθαι μῖξιν
5 9 ao \ , ¢ € A hg
GAN’ ἀπωθεῖσθαι καὶ φεύγειν, ὅπως ἁπλῆ διαμείνῃ

Ύ

1 αὑτῶν -Β ; αὐτῶν - ; αὐτῶν -all other Mss.

2 πρὸ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ -Stephanus from Epitome 1032 F; πρὸ
ταυτοῦ -Leonicus ; πρὸ τούτου -MSS.

3 πρὸ δὲ τοῦ ἑτέρου -H, B.

4 μιχθείσας -Diibner.

5 K, Β, ἢ, m, r, Escor. 72 (ε over erasure); συνύφην ἐν -e;
συνύφην ἕν -u, Aldine; συνύφηνεν -Basiliensis ; συνύφηνε ἕν
-Stephanus ; συνύφηνεν ἕν -Hutten.
ἀπειργασάμενος -f; ἀπεργασάμενος -E'pitome 1032 F.
ἀλλὰ -omitted by Εἰ, B.

8 τοῦ -Maurommates ; τῆς -Mss.
διαμένῃ -F.

I ὦ»

machi Arith. Introd. B xxiv, 11 (p. 28 [Hoche, 1867]) ;
Nemesius, De Natura Hominis v (pp. 153-154 [Matthaei]) ;
J. H. Waszink, Studien zum Timaioskommentar des Cal-
cidius I (1964), pp. 74-82.

α Cf. Philoponus, In Nicomachi Arith. Introd. B xviii,
1=£€, lines 12-16 (p. 18 {Hoche, 1867]) :... τὸ yap ταὐτὸν
ἀδιαίρετον. ... So some derived sameness in the psychogony
from the indivisible being and difference from the divisible
or identified the two pairs (cf. Proclus, In Platonis Tumaeum

242

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1025

united sameness and difference, contrary forces and
antagonistic extremes, not just by themselves ; but
by first interposing other beings, the indivisible in
front of sameness and in front of difference the
divisible, as each of the one pair is in a way akin to
one of the other,? and by then making an additional
blend with those between after they had been com-
mingled ὃ he thus fabricated the whole structure of
the soul,* from what were various having made it as
nearly uniform and from what were many as nearly
single as was feasible. Some? say that it was not
right of Plato to use “ refractory to mixture ” as an
epithet of the nature of difference,’ since it is not
unreceptive of change but is positively friendly to it,
and that it is rather the nature of sameness which,
being constant and hard to change, does not readily
submit to mixture but rejects and shuns it in order

ii, p. 155, 20-23 [Diehl]; Themistius, De Anima, p. 11,
10-12; A. E. Taylor, 4A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus,
p. 128).

ὃ See infra 1025 E (τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ τῆς μεριστῆς ὁ
θεὸς ὑποδοχὴν τῷ ταὐτῷ καὶ τῷ θατέρῳ συνέστησεν) and 1025 F
(δεῖται τρίτης τινὸς οἷον ὕλης ὑποδεχομένης .. .). For the way in
which Plutarch elicited this misinterpretation from Timaeus
35 a 4-B 1 see notes a and c on 1012 ὁ supra with the re-
ference in the latter note to Proclus (dn Platonis Timaeum
ii, p. 159, 5-14 [Diehl]), who construed the text correctly,
inferring from it, however, contrary to Plutarch that (the
intermediate) sameness and difference were combined first
and the blend of them was then combined with (the inter-
mediate) being.

¢ Cf. τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς εἶδος in Plat. Quaest. 1008 c, and for
συνεκεράσατο eis μίαν πάντα ἰδέαν of Timaeus 35 a 7 see supra
1012 c with note ὁ there and 1023 B, note c.

¢ ‘They have not yet been identified.

¢ Timaeus 35 a 7-8 (see 1012 c supra and note ὁ on 1024 ἢ
supra).

243

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

\ > \ \ ~
(1025) καὶ εἰλικρινὴς καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος. οἱ δὲ ταῦτ᾽"
9 A “- δῆς,
ἐγκαλοῦντες ἀγνοοῦσιν ὅτι τὸ μὲν ταὐτὸν ἰδέα τῶν
ς / > ; ~
ὡσαύτως ἐχόντων ἐστὶ TO δὲ θάτερον᾽ τῶν δια-
, ἢ 7 ᾿ ” a ὃν “
φόρως καὶ τούτου μὲν ἔργον, ὧν ἂν ἅψηται, δι-
, 4 ‘5 9 a \ \ - ΤΑ Ἐτὸ "5 \
voTavar® καὶ ἀλλοιοῦν καὶ πολλὰ ποιεῖν ἐκείνου δὲ
συνάγειν καὶ συνιστάναι διὰ ὁμοιότητος ἐκ πολ-
a , > , 7 \ \ ,
λῶν μίαν ἀναλαμβάνοντοςἷ μορφὴν καὶ δύναμιν.
26. Αὗται μὲν οὖν δυνάμεις τῆς τοῦ παντός εἰσι
ψυχῆς εἰς δὲ θνητὰ καὶ παθητὰ παρεισιοῦσαι" Op-
γανα (σωμάτων). ἄφθαρτα καὶ αὐτὰ" [σωμάτων |”
> , 12 \ ~ a 13 Naty , /

Ὁ ἐν ταύταις" τὸ τῆς δυαδικῆς" καὶ ἀορίστου μερίδος
ἐπιφαίνεται, μᾶλλον εἶδος, {τὸ δὲ τῆς ἁπλῆς καὶ
μοναδικῆς ἀμυδρότερον ὑποδέδυκεν. οὐ μὴν ῥᾳ-
δίως ἄν τις οὔτε πάθος ἀνθρώπου παντάπασιν

1 εἰληκρινὴς -f, τη. r.

ταῦτα -E,-B; ταύτας -all other mss. (ς -r).

τὸ δὲ ἕτερον - Εἰ, B.

διεστάναι -u, Aldine.

διιστάναι δι᾽ ὁμοιότητος (omitting καὶ ἀλλοιοῦν . . . καὶ
συνιστάναι) -f, Υ.

6 ἐκ -E, B; ἐκεῖ -all other mss., Aldine.

7H. C.3 dvadapBavovra -Mss.; ἀναλαμβανόντων -Turnebus,
Stephanus.

8. KE, B, ἢ, m, r, Basiliensis ; παρεισιοῦται -e, ιν, Escor. 72,
Aldine; <ai> παρεισίασιν -B. Miller (1873); ai δ᾽ eis...
παρεισίασιν -Bernardakis.

9 «σωμάτων; -added by H. C.

10 ἄφθαρτα καὶ αὐτὰ -Μ88. ; φθαρτῶν καὶ αὐτὰ -Stephanus ;
«φθαρτῶν» ἄφθαρτοι αὐταὶ -Diibner; ἀῴφθαρτοι καὶ αὐταὶ -Β.
Miiller (1873) ; ἄφθαρτοι ζφθαρτῶνΣ αὐταὶ -Bernardakis.

11 [σωμάτων] -deleted by H. C.

12 τούτοις -Stephanus.

13 τῆς ἁπλῆς δυαδικῆς -f.

14 ἐπιφέρεται -B1 (ρ remade to ν -B?).

24:4

δι fF & bP

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1025

to remain simple and pure and unsubject to altera-
tion. They who make these objections fail to under-
stand, however, that sameness is the idea 4 of things
identical and difference of things various and that the
function of the latter is to divide and diversify and
make many whatever it touches but of the former
is to unite and combine,’ recovering from many by
means of similarity a single form and force.¢

26. Now, these are faculties of the soul of the sum
of things? but enter besides ὁ into mortal and passible
organs {οὗ bodies). Indestructible as they are
themselves, in these faculties the form of the dyadic
and indefinite part makes itself more apparent, while
<that» of the simple and monadic part is submerged
in greater obscurity.’ It would not be easy, how-
ever, to observe in man either an emotion entirely

« Cf. Plato, Sophist 255 x 5-6 and 256 a 12-8 3 (see 1013 ἢ
supra with note g there) and see ἰδέα in 1023 c supra.

> See note 6 on 1024 ἢ supra with De Defectu Orac. 428 c

referred to there and De # 391 ο(... ταὐτοῦ δὲ τὴν μιγνύου-
σαν ἀρχὴν θατέρου δὲ τὴν διακρίνουσαν) ; and cf. Proclus, ln
Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 155, 14-20 and p. 158, 18-31 (Diehl).

¢ See 1022 F supra with note c there; cf. Plato, Phaedrus
265 p 3-4 and Hermias, Jn Platonis Phaedrum, p. 171, 8-11
(Couvreur).

4 Cf. Timaeus 41 v 4-5 (τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ψυχὴν . . .) and De
Virtute Morali 441 F (ἣἥ 7° ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ μέρος ἣ μίμημα τῆς
τοῦ παντὸς οὖσα... .).

¢ The text has been thought to be corrupt chiefly because
of the failure to recognize παρεισιοῦσαι as a periphrastic
present (cf. Weissenberger, Die Sprache Plutarchs I, p. 9:
H. Widmann, Beitrdge zur Syntax Epikurs, p. 135).

f i.e. in these that have entered into the mortal organs of
bodies.

9 The dyadic part is manifested as difference and the
monadic as sameness (see 1024 p supra with note / there).

15 «τὸ» -added by Wyttenbach.
245

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

3 / ~
(1025) ἀπηλλαγμένον λογισμοῦ κατανοήσειεν οὔτε διανοίας
ΨᾺΡ ς“ \ > f ἋἋ ,ὔ; Bh A
κίνησιν ἡ μηδὲν ἐπιθυμίας ἢ φιλοτιμίας ἢ τοῦ
, λ / / ~
χαίροντος ἢ λυπουμένου πρόσεστι. διὸ τῶν φιλο-
/ ¢ \ \ / / A “
σόφων οἱ μὲν τὰ πάθη λόγους ποιοῦσιν, ὡς πᾶσαν
ἐπιθυμίαν καὶ λύπην καὶ ὀργὴν κρίσεις οὔσας" οἱ δὲ
τὰς ἀρετὰς ἀποφαίνουσι παθητικάς, καὶ γὰρ ἀν-
δρείᾳ' τὸ φοβούμενον καὶ σωφροσύνῃ τὸ ἡδόμενον
\ ͵ \ , 2 \ \
καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ τὸ κερδαλέον elvar.? Kat μὴν θεω-
E ρητικῆς ye τῆς ψυχῆς οὔσης ἅμα καὶ πρακτικῆς
καὶ θεωρούσης μὲν τὰ καθόλου πραττούσης δὲ τὰ
καθ᾽ ἕκαστα καὶ νοεῖν μὲν ἐκεῖνα ταῦτα δ᾽ αἰσθά-
χιλνδρέά ΒΓ:
5. ἐνεῖναι -Bernardakis.
καὶ θεωρούσης μὲν τὰ καθόλου πραττούσης δὲ -f1 (in margin),

m! (in margin) ; καὶ θεωρούσης δὲ (δὲ -omitted by E, B) τὰ καθ᾽
ἕκαστα -Mss., Aldine.

3

ee eee

* See 1024 F supra (ἡ μὲν νόησις κίνησις τοῦ νοοῦντος . - .).
For διάνοια used of the intellectual faculty of the soul cf.
De Virtute Morali 441 c (Stoics) and 448 s-c (Plutarch him-
self of τὸ θεωρητικόν, cf. 451 B [τὸ διανοητικόν] and Plat.
(uaest. 1004 p supra); Galen, De Placitis Hippoc. et Plat.

ix, 1 (p. 733, 11-14 [Mueller]).

δ Cf. De Virtute Morali 443 B-c (. . . τὸ θυμούμενον ἐν
ἡμῖν καὶ ἐπιθυμοῦν... οὐκ ἀποικοῦν οὐδ᾽ ἀπεσχισμένον [scil. τοῦ
φρονοῦντος] .- . . ἀλλὰ φύσει μὲν ἐξηρτημένον ἀεὶ δὲ ὁμιλοῦν . . .).

¢ Stoic doctrine (cf. De Virtute Morali 441 c-p and
446 r—447 a, De Sollertia Animalium 961 τ ; and Diogenes
Laertius, vii, 111 [S.V.F. i, frag. 202 and iii, frags. 382,
456, 459, 461, and 462)).

@ Cf. De Virtute Morali 443 c-p (. . . τὰς ἠθικὰς ἀρετάς, οὐκ
ἀπαθείας οὔσας ἀλλὰ συμμετρίας παθῶν καὶ μεσότητας, .. . {ef
Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1104 Ὁ 24-26]) and Albinus, Lpitome,
xxxii, 1 (Ὁ. 155, 1-5 [Louis]=p. 185, 21-25 [Hermann]): ai
πλεῖσται ἀρεταὶ περὶ πάθη γίνονται... The doctrine is originally
Peripatetic: cf. Aristotle, Hth. Nic. 1104 Ὁ 13-16, 1109 b 30,

246

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1025

divorced from reason or a motion of the mind ¢ in
which there is present nothing of desire or ambition
or rejoicing or grieving.’ This is why some of the
philosophers make the emotions varieties of reason,
on the ground that all desire and grief and anger are
judgments,° while others declare that the virtues
have to do with emotions,? for fearing is the province
of courage and enjoyment that of sobriety and
acquisitiveness that of justice.¢ Now, as the soul is
at once contemplative and practical’ and contem-
plates the universals but acts upon the particulars 9
and apparently cognizes the former but perceives the

and 1178 a 10-21 with Aspasius, Hth. Nic., p. 42, 21-24;
[Aristotle], Magna Moralia 1206 ἃ 36—b 29 ; Areius Didymus
in Stobaeus, Hel. ii, 7, 20 (p. 142, 6-7 [Wachsmuth]) ;
and the Pseudo-Pythagoreans, Metopus and Theages, in
Stobaeus, Anth. iii, 1, 115, and 118 (pp. 71, 16-72, 1 and
p. 81, 11-14 [Hense}).

6 For courage and sobriety cf. Eth. Nic. 1104 a 18-b 8
and Magna Moralia 1185 Ὁ 21-32, and for justice cf. Eth.
Eud. 1221 a 4 and 23-24; ef. also Stobaeus, Ecl. ii, 7, 20
(p. 141, 5-18 [Wachsmuth]) and Plutarch, De Virtute Morali
445 a (Babut, Plutarque de la Vertu Ethique, p. 78 and
Plutarque et le Stoicisme, pp. 331-332).

t Cf. Albinus, Epitome ii, 2 and iv, 8 (pp. 7, 1-2 and 21,
4-8 [Louis]=pp. 153, 2-4 and 156, 13-17 [Hermann]);
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 335, 2-10 (Diehl) on
Timaeus 43 c 7-p 4; Simplicius, De Anima, p. 95, 26-27.
This bipartition, foreshadowed in Plato’s Politicus 258 © 4-7,
goes back to Xenocrates (frag. 6 [Heinze]) and Aristotle (De
Anima 407 a 23-25 and 433 a 14-15, Politics 1333 a 24-25) ;
and despite the tripartition frequently used by the latter
(Metaphysics 1025 b 25, Eth. Nic. 1139 a 26-31) it became
the conventional Peripatetic distinction ([Plutarch], De
Placitis, 874 r—875 a=Dow. Graeci, pp. 273 a 25—274 a
17 ; Diogenes Laertius, v, 28).

9 Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 981 a 15-24; Lth. Nic. 1141
b 16 and 1143 a 32-33.

247

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1025) νεσθαι δοκούσης, ὁ κοινὸς λόγος ἀεὶ περί τε

A > 4 “ ~
ταὐτὸν ἐντυγχάνων τῷ θατέρῳ' καὶ ταὐτῷ" περὶ
/ ᾽ an ι
θάτερον ἐπιχειρεῖ μὲν ὅροις καὶ διαιρέσεσι χωρί-
4 \ “a \ οἷ \ ‘ \ > \ \ \
tew τὸ €v καὶ τὰ πολλὰ καὶ TO ἀμερὲς καὶ TO
\ a
μεριστὸν" οὐ δύναται δὲ καθαρῶς ἐν οὐδετέρῳ yeve-
.. 4
σθαι διὰ τὸ Kal* τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐναλλὰξ᾽ ἐμπεπλέχθαι
καὶ καταμεμῖχθαι δι᾿ ἀλλήλων. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τῆς
οὐσίας τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ τῆς μεριστῆς ὁ
θεὸς ὑποδοχὴν τῷ ταὐτῷ" καὶ τῷ θατέρῳ συν-
9 ~ : A
ἔστησεν ἵν᾽ ἐν διαφορᾷ τάξις γένηται: τοῦτο yap
ἦν γενέσθαι, ἐπεὶ χωρὶς τούτων" τὸ μὲν ταὐτὸν
> > ἃ σ > 0" / OA /
οὐκ εἶχε διαφορὰν wor οὐδὲ κίνησιν οὐδὲ γένεσιν
\ , 9 O\ , ἢ ᾽ Ee τ Cs ee
τὸ θάτερον" δὲ τάξιν οὐκ εἶχεν ὥστ᾽ οὐδὲ σύστασιν
3 A / \ \ > ~ 3 ἴω 7
οὐδὲ γένεσιν. καὶ γὰρ εἰ τῷ ταὐτῷ συμβέβηκεν
1
8

-E

τῷ ἑτέρῳ -Ἐ, B. 2 καὶ ταυτὸ -B.

καὶ τὸ μεριστὸν -f, M3; καὶ τὸ ἀμεριστὸν -Τὶ : καὶ μεριστὸν
B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.

καὶ -B; omitted by all other mss.

ἐναναλλαξ' (sic) -f, τη.

E, B; τῷ αὐτῷ -all other mss., Aldine.

f,m, 13; τῷ ἑτέρῳ -all other mss., Aldine.

τούτων -f, m, τ, Aldine; ὄντων -all other mss.

® τὸ θάτερον -C.C.C. 99, Diibner; θάτερον (τὸ omitted) -e,
-u, in, r, Escor. 72, Aldine; τὸ ἕτερον -E, B; τὸ θάτερον...
οὐδὲ σύστασιν οὐδὲ γένεσιν -omitted by f.

Ψ»ἦ

orn ὁ σι»

¢ See 1024 Ἐ-- supra with note f on page 237.

> 4.e. common to both the contemplative aspect and the
practical (cf. De Virtute Morali 443 © [. .. τοῦ λόγου . ..
τὸ μὲν ... θεωρητικόν ἐστι τὸ δ᾽... πρακτικόν] with Aristotle,
Politics 1333 ἃ 25 and Eth. Nic. 1139 a 6-15 [cf. Gauthier
et Jolif ad loc., ii, pp. 440-442]); but it is so just because
it is a blend of both principles, the one proceeding to uni-
versals and the other to particulars, and so becomes νόησις
ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς, 1.6. contemplative, and δόξα ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς,
i.e. practical (1024 r supra with notes a and ὁ there). So
both Thévenaz (L’ Ame du Monde, p. 31, note 159) and

248

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1025

latter,* the reason common to both,” as it is continu-
ally coming upon difference in sameness and upon
sameness in difference, tries with definitions and
divisions ὁ to separate the one and the many, that is
the indivisible and the divisible,? but cannot arrive
at either exclusively, because the very principles
have been alternately intertwined and thoroughly
intermixed with each other. It was just for this
reason that god made from being the compound of
the indivisible and the divisible as a receptacle for
sameness and difference,’ that order might come to
be in differentiation ; in fact, ‘come to be”’ amounted
to this, since without these sameness had no dif-
ferentiation so that it had no motion either and so
no coming to be and difference had no order so that
it had no coherence either and so no coming to be.9

Helmer (De An. Proc., p. 53), whose interpretation he rejects
and Hubert here adopts, are partially right.

¢ See 1026 pv infra: ἡ δὲ ὁριστικὴ δύναμις . . . καὶ τούὐναν-
τίον ἡ διαιρετικὴ. .. -

@ Cf. Plato, Sophist 245 a 8-9 with ἕν τε καὶ ἀμερές in
Theaetetus 205 © 2 and Parmenides 138 a 5-6; and Aristotle,
Metaphysics 1054 a 20-23 on τὸ ἕν καὶ τὰ πολλά as the
indivisible and the divisible.

ὁ Cf. Plato, Philebus 15 Ὁ 4-8.

t See 1025 8 supra with note ὁ there.

9 See 1024 © supra with note b there. The next sentence
shows that χωρὶς τούτων means without the compound of
indivisible and divisible being as a receptacle. The οὐδὲ in
both occurrences of οὐδὲ γένεσιν, the second of which Hubert
mistakenly daggers, is consecutive (cf. infra De Comm. Not.
1070 ©, note a): γένεσις presupposes motion (cf. Alexander,
Quaestiones, Ὁ. 82, 3-4 [Bruns]; Philoponus, De Generatione,
p. 306, 3-4), but it also implies something coherent that
comes to be (cf. in Adv. Colotem 1114 8B the objection to
infinitude as a principle for coming to be: ἡ δ᾽ ἄτακτος...
ἀπερίληπτος, αὑτὴν ἀναλύουσα Kal ταράττουσα ... .).

249

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

e A na “

(1025) ἑτέρῳ εἶναι' τοῦ ἑτέρου καὶ τῷ ἑτέρῳ πάλιν αὑτῷ"
9 / 3 A ε / / > γ΄ ~

ταὐτόν, οὐδὲν ἡ τοιαύτη μέθεξις ἀλλήλων ποιεῖ
γόνιμον, ἀλλὰ δεῖται τρίτης τινὸς οἷον ὕλης ὑπο-

1026 δεχομένης. καὶ διατιθεμένης ὑ ὑπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων. αὕτη
ἐστὶν ἣν πρώτην συνέστησε τῷ περὶ τὰ νοητὰ

μονίμῳ τοῦ περὶ τὰ σώματα κινητικοῦ τὸ ἄπειρον
ὁρίσας.

27. ‘Os δὲ φωνή τίς ἐστιν ἄλογος καὶ ἀσήμαν-

> “A a

tos λόγος δὲ λέξις ἐν φωνῇ σημαντικῇ" διανοίας,
ς
ἁρμονία δὲ τὸ ἐκ φθόγγων καὶ διαστημάτων καὶ

1 ἕτερον εἶναι -Benseler (De Hiatu, p. 529).

2 f,m; αὐτῶ -E}, e, u (αὐτῶι), Escor. 72; ταὐτῶ -E?,
B; αὐτὸς -r!, -

ὃ σημαντικὴ -B, u

οὐ ἐμ μωγὸ
4 δέ τι -u.

* For συμβέβηκε in this sense see Plat. Quaest. 1003 F
supra (τοῦτο δὲ καὶ τῇ μονάδι συμβέβηκε). Even Aristotle
at times uses συμβέβηκε and συμβεβηκός simpliciter (De Anima
402 a 8-10, De Part. Animal. 643 a 30-31 with Metaphysics
1025 a 30-32) in referring to what he calls more exactly συμβε-
βηκότα καθ᾽ αὑτά (Anal. Post. 75 Ὁ 1-2 and 83 b 19-20, Meta-
physics 995 b 19-20). Cf. 1018 pv infra (chap. 14): (tov τῷ
τελευταίῳ συμβέβηκε, τῷ KC’.

> i.e. the intercommunion of ideas in Plato, Sophist 254
Ὁ 4—259 B 7 (cf. 256 B 1 and 259 a 7 for the term μέθεξις) :
by such “ participation ”’ in difference sameness like all the
ideas is different from difference as it is from all the others,
and difference like all the others is the same as itself by
“ participation ’’ in sameness (cf. Proclus, In Platonis
Parmenidem, cols. 756, 33-757, 8 [Cousin?]). For the ideas,
sameness and difference, see supra 1025 c with note a there.

¢ In Timaeus 48 κε 3—49 A 6 the γενέσεως ὑποδοχὴ καὶ
τιθήνη is introduced as ἃ τρίτον γένος : and Aristotle refers
to his substrate of contraries, themselves ἀπαθῆ ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων,
i.e. to matter, as τρίτον τι (Metaphysics 1069 b 8-9 and
1075 a 30-32, cf. Physics 190 Ὁ 33—191 a 1). Plutarch in
De Iside 370 r—371 a also ascribes to Plato τρίτην τινὰ
φύσιν between ταὐτόν and θάτερον (see note c on 1015 B supra) ;

250

“2. “ἀο'όσπ eee ee eee

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1025-1026

For, even if it is a characteristic α of sameness to be
different from difference and of difference again to
be the same as itself, mutual participation of this
kind ὃ has no fruitful result; but a third term is
required, a kind of matter serving as a receptacle for
both and being modified by them,°¢ and this it is that
he first compounded when with that which abides
about the intelligibles ὦ he bounded the limitlessness
of that which is motive in the case of bodies.¢

27. As some sound is not speech and not significant
but speech is an utterance in sound that signifies
thought, and as concord is what consists of sounds
and intervals and a sound is one and the same thing,’

but there he takes ταὐτόν to be the good principle and
θάτερον the evil, i.e. the evil “* world-soul ” that he professes
to find in the Laws and which in the present essay (1014
n-E supra) he identifies instead with the “ divisible being ”’
here compounded with the “ indivisible’ to be itself the
‘‘ third term,”’ the receptacle for both ταὐτόν and θάτερον.

¢ See note 6 on pages 228 f. supra.

¢ See 1015 © supra (τὴν κινητικὴν τῆς ὕλης καὶ περὶ τὰ
σώματα γιγνομένην μεριστὴν . . . κίνησιν) with notes ὁ and c
there and 1027 a infra (τῷ μὲν ἑνὶ τὴν ἀπειρίαν ὁρίσαντος ἵν᾽
οὐσία γένηται πέρατος μετασχοῦσα) With note a there.

f Cf. S.V.F. iii, p. 213, 18-21 and ii, p. 48, 28-30. The
use of φωνή for “‘ sound” in the generic sense (so Plat.
Quaest. 1000 B, 1001 Fr, and 1006 B; cf. Timaeus 67 B 2-4
and Divisiones Aristoteleae ὃ 30 [24]=pp. 37, 23-38, 14
{Mutschmann]) is called catachrestic by [Plutarch], De
Placitis 902 n=Dowx. Graeci, p. 408 a 3-8 (cf. Aristotle,
De Anima 420 Ὁ 5-16 and 27-33). For speech (λόγος) as
articulate sound that is “ significant ’”’ see also Plat. Quaest.
1009 v-E.

9 Cf. Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 12 (Musici Scrip-
tores Graeci, Ὁ. 261, 4-6 [Jan]); Aristoxenus, Hlementa
Harmonica i, 15, 15-16 with P. Marquard’s note ad loc.,
pp. 224-227 ; Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 49, 18-20 from Adrastus
and 60, 13-16 (Hiller).

251

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1026) φθόγγος μὲν ἕν καὶ ταὐτὸν διάστημα δὲ φθόγγων
ἑτερότης καὶ διαφορά, μιχθέντων δὲ τούτων wor
γίγνεται καὶ μέλος" οὕτως τὸ παθητικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς
ἀόριστον ἦν καὶ ἀστάθμητον, εἶθ᾽ ὡρίσθη πέρατος
ἐγγενομένου; καὶ εἴδους τῷ μεριστῷ καὶ παντο-
δαπῷ τῆς κινήσεως. συλλαβοῦσα δὲ τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ
τὸ θάτερον" ὁμοιότησι καὶ ἀνομοιότησιν ἀριθμῶν

Β ἐκ διαφορᾶς ὁμολογίαν ἀπεργασαμένων᾽' ζωή" τε
τοῦ παντός ἐστιν ἔμφρων καὶ ἁρμονία καὶ λόγος

ἄγων πειθοῖ μεμιγμένην" ἀνάγκην, ἣν εἱμαρμένην

ε \ A > a \ / e -
ot πολλοὶ καλοῦσιν, ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς δὲ φιλίαν ὁμοῦ
καὶ νεῖκος, Ἡράκλειτος δὲ παλίντροπον, ἁρμονίην

1 ἐγγινομένου -f, m, r.
2 ἕτερον -E, B, u.
καὶ -F.
4 FE, B; ἐπεργασαμένων -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine; ézepya-
σμένων -f, τη, Τ.
5Ὴ, Β: “ζῶν -all other mss., Aldine.
8 μεμιγμένων -Τ.
7 μ88. (580 in De Tranquillitate Animi 473 r—474 a all
mss. except D, which has παλίντονος as do all mss. in De [side
369 B); παλίντονον -Turnebus.

*¢ Cf. Aelian Platonicus and Thrasyllus in Porphyry, Jn
Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 35, 15-22 and p. 91, 13-18 (Diiring) ;
Bacchius, [sagoge 6 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 292, 20-21
[Jan]). In 1020 τ infra it is defined 85 πᾶν τὸ περιεχόμενον
ὑπὸ δυεῖν φθόγγων ἀνομοίων τῇ τάσει.

> So also Qu aest. Conviv. 141 C3 cf. τὸ ἐκ φθόγγων καὶ
διαστημάτων καὶ χρόνων συγκείμενον in Bacchius, Jsagoge 78
(Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 309, 13-14 [Jan]) and the
objection of Aristoxenus, Klementa Harmonica i, 18, 16-19, 1.

¢ See the end of the preceding chapter with note e on
1026 a and 1016 c supra with note 6 on page 203.

@ Probably a reference to similar and dissimilar numbers,
for which cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 36, 12-37, 6 (Hiller)
and Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem,

252

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1026

an interval the diversity and difference of sounds.®
and the mixture of these results in song and melody,’
so the affective part of the soul was indeterminate and
unstable and then was bounded when there came to
be limit and form in the divisible and omnifarious
character of the motion.¢ And, once having compre-
hended sameness and difference with the similarities
and dissimilarities of numbers ὦ that produced con-
sensus out of dissension, it is for the sum of things
rational life and concord ὁ and reason guiding neces-
sity that has been tempered with persuasion’ and
which by most people is called destiny,7 by Empe-
docles love together with strife,» by Heraclitus
concord of the universe retroverse like that of lyre

pp. 82, 10-18 and 84, 10-88, 15 (Pistelli) ; see 1017 £ infra:
ai συζυγίαι τῶν ὁμοίων ἔσονται πρὸς τοὺς ὁμοίους.

¢ See 1080 c infra; for ζωή. .. ἔμφρων cf. Timaeus 36 Ἑ
3-4, quoted by Plutarch at 1016 B supra.

¢ An inexact reminiscence of Timaeus 47 πὶ 5—48 a 5;
cf. Plutarch’s Phocion ii, 9 (742 ©), and for his interpretation
of ἀνάγκη in the Timaeus see 1014 p—1015 a supra.

9 Cf. lamblichus, De Mysteriis viii, 7 (p. 269, 13-14
[Parthey]) and Corpus Hermeticum xvi, 11 (ii, p. 235, 22
{Nock-Festugiére]). Plutarch himself substitutes ἀνάγκη
for εἱμαρμένη (see supra 1015 a, note e); cf. also [Plutarch],
De Placitis 884 Ἐ-τὶ (Dow. Graeci, p. 321 a 6-9 and p. 322
a 1-3) and Cicero, De Natura Deorum i, 55 (‘ illa fatalis
necessitas quam εἱμαρμένην dicitis ᾽᾽).

4 Empedocles, frag. A 45 (D.-K.); of. Empedocles, frag.
B 115, 1-2 (D.-K.) with Hippolytus, Refutatio vii, 29, 23
(p. 214, 17-24 [Wendland]) and frags. A 32 and A 38 (D.-K.)
with Simplicius, Phys., p. 197, 10-13, p. 465, 12-13, and
p. 1184, 5-17. Zeller’s estimate of this evidence (Phil.
Griech. i, 2, p. 969, note 2) is still valid despite such attempts
at rehabilitation and embellishment as that of J. Bollack’s
(Empédocle i [Paris, 1965], pp. 153-158 and 161); οἱ
H. Schreckenberg, Ananke (Miinchen, 1964), pp. 111-113
with note 97,

253

PLUTARCH’S MORATLIA

/ U
(1026) κόσμου oKwomep λύρης καὶ τόξου, Ilappevidyns δὲ
φῶς καὶ σκότος, ᾿Αναξαγόρας δὲ νοῦν καὶ ἀπειρίαν,
Ζωροάστρης δὲ θεὸν καὶ δαίμονα, τὸν μὲν ᾿᾽Ὧρο-
μάσδην καλῶν τὸν δ᾽ ᾿Αρειμάνιον.: Εὐριπίδης δ᾽
οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἀντὶ τοῦ συμπλεκτικοῦ τῷ διαζευκτικῷ
κέχρηται
Levs εἴτ᾽ ἀνάγκη φύσεος εἴτε νοῦς" βροτῶν
Ο καὶ γὰρ ἀνάγκη καὶ νοῦς ἐστιν ἡ διήκουσα διὰ
πάντων δύναμις. Αἰγύπτιοι μὲν οὖν μυθολογοῦν-

ει
1 ἀριμάνιον -B!; ἀριμάνιον -all other mss.
| re -α.
8 Stephanus ; φύσεως -MSS.
4 vods -omitted by r.

« Heraclitus, frag. B 51 (D.-K. and Walzer)=frags. 45
and 56 (Bywater): cf. Dow. Graeci, p. 303 8 8-10 (...
εἱμαρμένην δὲ λόγον ἐκ τῆς ἐναντιοδρομίας δημιουργὸν τῶν ὄντων)
and Diogenes Laertius, ix, 7 (p. 440, 2-3 [Long]). Both in
De Tranquillitate Animi 473 r—474 a and in De Iside 369
B the quotation from Heraclitus is followed by that of Euri-
pides, frag. 21, 3-4 (Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag.”, p. 369).
Neither in the former of these nor in the present passage is
there reason to doubt that Plutarch wrote παλίντροπος, whe-

_ ther it was this or παλίντονος, as in the De Jside, that Hera-
clitus had written (cf. W. K. C. Guthrie, 4 History of Greek
Philosophy i (Cambridge, 1962], p. 439, note 3 with refer-
ences; M. Marcovich, Heraclitus [Merida, 1967], pp. 125-
126).

> See Plutarch, Adv. Colotem 1114 8. Cf. Simplicius,
Phys., p. 38, 18-24 (quoting Alexander); p. 25, 15-16;
pp. 30, 14-31, 2; and pp. 179, 20-180, 12 with Parmenides,
frag. B 8, 53-61 and B 9 (D.-K.). The belief that the second
part of Parmenides’ poem, called the κοσμογονία by Plutarch
in Amatorius 756 ©, was meant to be a valid account of the
phenomenal world (Adv. Colotem 1114 c-£) goes back to
Aristotle (Jetaphysics 986 Ὁ 31-34; cf. Cherniss, Crit.
Presoc. Phil., p. 48, note 192); but Plutarch is alone in
identifying its two ‘‘ principles ’’ with ἀνάγκη, for which see
254

GVUNERATION OF THE SOUT, 1026

and bow,* by Parmenides light and darkness,’ by
Anaxagoras intelligence and infinitude,¢ and by
Zoroaster god and spirit, the former called by him
Oromasdes and the latter Areimanius.4 Euripides
has erred in using the disjunctive instead of the
copulative conjunction in the prayer,

Zeus, whether natural necessity
Or the intelligence of mortal men,’

for the power that pervades all things’ is both
necessity and intelligence. Now, the Egyptians in
a mythical account say enigmatically that, when

rather Parmenides, frag. B 10, 6-7 (D.-K) and frag. A 37
(p. 224, 7-9 [D.-K.]) with frag. B 12 (D.-K.).

ὁ See De Iside 370 Ἑ (νοῦν καὶ ἄπειρον). Cf. Theophrastus,
Phys. Opin., frag. 4 (Dox. Graecit, p. 479, 14-15); and for
Plutarch’s ἀπειρία here cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 988 a 28.
Against the identification with ἀνάγκη see Plutarch himself
in Pericles iv, 6 (154 n-c); but on the other hand see De
Defectu Orac. 435 νηῷ... τὸ κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην . .- -. μετιὼν ἀεὶ .. .)
and Aristotle, Afetaphysics, 985 a 18-21 (cf. Cherniss, Crit.
Presoc. Philos., pp. 234-235).

4 See supra 1012 © with note c there on “ Zaratas”’;
De Iside 369 p—370 c; and Diogenes Laertius, i, 8. Cf.
Bidez-Cumont, Les Mages Hellénisés i, pp. 58-66 and ii,
pp. 70-79 ; and J. Hani, Rev. Ktudes Grecques, Ixxvii (1964),
pp. 489-525.

¢ Euripides, Troiades, 886. For the “ correction’ sug-
gested by Plutarch in Stoic fashion cf. Babut, Plutarque et
le Stoicisme, p. 141.

* For this phrase ef. Cornutus, xi (p. 11, 91 [Lang]) and
{ Aristotle], De Mundo 396 8 28-29. It is used of the Platonic
world-soul by Atticus, frag. viii (Baudry)= Eusebius, Praep.
Evang. xv, 12, 3 (ii, p. 375, 17-19 [Mras]), though it is Stoic
in origin: ef. Plutarch, De Iside 367 c with Diogenes
Laertius, vii, 147; [Plutarch], De Placitis 882 a and 885 a
(Dox. Graeci, p. 306 a 5-8 and p. 323 A 1-6); Alexander,
De Micxtione, p. 225, 1-3 (Bruns); Plotinus, Hnn. m1, i, 4,
lines 1-9.

255

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1026) τες" αἰνίττονται, τοῦ Ὥρου" δίκην ὀφλόντος, τῷ
μὲν πατρὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῇ δὲ μητρὶ τὴν
σάρκα καὶ τὴν πιμελὴν προσνεμηθῆναι. τῆς δὲ
ψυχῆς οὐδὲν μὲν εἰλικρινὲς | οὐδ᾽ ἄκρατον οὐδὲ χωρὶς
ἀπολείπεται τῶν ἄλλων: ἁρμονίη γὰρ ἀφανὴς φα-
νερῆς κρείττων καθ᾽ Ἡράκλειτον, ἐν ἡ τὰς δια-
φορὰς καὶ τὰς ἑἕτερότητας ὁ μιγνύων θεὸς ἔκρυψε
καὶ κατέδυσεν᾽ ἐμφαίνεται δὲ ὅμως αὐτῆς τῷ μὲν
ἀλόγῳ τὸ ταραχῶδες τῷ δὲ λογικῷ τὸ εὔτακτον,
ταῖς δ᾽ αἰσθήσεσι τὸ κατηναγκασμένον τῷ δὲ νῷ

D τὸ αὐτοκρατές. ἡ δὲ ὁριστικὴ δύναμις τὸ καθόλου
καὶ τὸ ἀμερὲς διὰ συγγένειαν ἀγαπᾷ, καὶ τοὐναν-
τίον ἡ διαιρετικὴ πρὸς τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα φέρεται τῷ
μεριστῷ᾽ χαίρει δὲ ὁλότητι" διὰ τὸ ταὐτὸν ἐφήδε-
ταί Ate) μεταβολῇ" διὰ τὸ θάτερον ἢ οὐχ ἥκιστα
δὲ ἥ τε πρὸς τὸ καλὸν διαφορὰ καὶ τὸ αἰσχρὸν ἥ

1 μυθολογοῦνται -Υ. 2 r; wpov -all other mss.
3 Diibner ; ὄφλοντος -Mss.
4 ὁλότητι -Bury (Proc. Cambridge Philol. Soc., N.S.
[1950-51], p. 81) ; ὅλον τῇ -Mss.
5 ἐφήδεταί <re> -Bury (loc. cit.) : ἐφ᾽ ἃ δεῖται -Mss.
* Tm, vy Aldine ; sobs -all ethiae MSS.
7 διὰ τὸ ἕτερον -E,

® See De Iside 358 © and De Libidine et Aegritudine 6 (vii,
p. 7, 2-16 [Bernardakis]=vi, 3, p. 56, 7-20 [Ziegler-Pohlenz,
1966]); cf. J. Hani, Rev. Etudes Grecques, Ixxvi (1963),
pp. 111-120.

δ See 1025 ἢ supra with note ὁ there and Plat. Quaest.
1008 c supra. In De Tranquillitate Animi 474 a, De Sol-
lertia Animalium 964 pv-E, and De Iside 369 c it is rather
human affairs or life, nature, and the sublunar world that
are said to contain nothing pure or unmixed.

¢ Heraclitus, frag. B 54 (D.-K. and Walzer)=frag. 47
(Bywater):

@ Cf. τὴν δὲ ταραχώδη Kai ἀνόητον (1014 c supra) and ἡμῶν
τὸ ταραχῶδες (Quaest. Conviv, 746 a).

256

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1026

Horus was convicted, the breath and blood were as-
signed to his father and the flesh and fat to his
mother. Of the soul, however, nothing remains
pure or unmixed or separate from the rest,? for
stronger than manifest concord according to Hera-
clitus is the unmanifest,° wherein god, making the
mixture, sank and concealed the differences and the
diversities ; but nevertheless turbulence makes itself
evident in the irrational part of it ἃ and orderliness in
the rational,¢ necessitation in the senses 7 and inde-
pendence in the intelligence.’ Its faculty for
defining has a fondness for the universal and the
indivisible by reason of kinship, and contrariwise that
for dividing is moved to particulars by the divisible ἃ ;
and it rejoices in integrity by reason of sameness
<and») exults in change by reason of difference.‘
More than anything else, however, the dissension in
regard to fair and foul and again in regard to pleasant
¢ Cf. τὸ νοερὸν καὶ... TO τεταγμένον (1016 c supra).

Cf. Plato, Timaeus 42 a 3-B 1 and 69 c -Ὁ 6; the
senses are dependent upon external stimuli (Timaeus 43 c
4-7 and Philebus 33 p 2—34 a 9).

σ Cf. De Facie 945 νυ (ὁ δὲ νοῦς . . . αὐτοκράτωρ) and De
Amore Prolis 493 Ὁ-Ὲ (. . . αὐτοκρατὴς λόγος) with Anaxa-
goras, frag. B 12 (ii, p. 37, 18-20 [D.-K.]) and Plato, Cratylus
413 ὁ 5-7.

δ See 1025 © supra (ἐπιχείρει μὲν ὅροις καὶ διαιρέσεσι χωρί-
few. . . τὸ ἀμερὲς καὶ τὸ μεριστὸν . . .) and cf. [amblichus,
De Comm. Math. Scientia, p. 65, 11-15 and 23-24 (Festa).
For τὸ καθόλου καὶ τὸ ἀμερές cf. Aristotle, Anal. Post. 100 Ὁ
2; Platonic diaeresis does not extend to τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα, of
course, save in the sense of “‘ infimae species ’’ sometimes
given this term by Aristotle (Anal. Post. 97 b 28-37, De Part.
Animal. 642 b 35-36).

# Of the many emendations proposed for the corrupt text

of this clause only Bury’s, which is here adopted, has any
plausibility in the context.

257

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1026) τε πρὸς τὸ ἡδὺ καὶ τὸ ἀλγεινὸν αὖθις of τε τῶν
ἐρώντων ἐνθουσιασμοὶ καὶ πτοήσεις καὶ διαμάχαι
τοῦ φιλοκάλου πρὸς τὸ ἀκόλαστον ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ
μικτὸν ἔκ τε τῆς θείας καὶ ἀπαθοῦς ἔκ τε τῆς
θνητῆς καὶ περὶ τὰ σώματα παθητῆς μερίδος, ὧν
καὶ αὐτὸς ὀνομάζει τὸ μὲν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔμφυτον

K ἡδονῶν τὸ δ᾽ ἐπείσακτον δόξαν ἐφιεμένην τοῦ ἀρί-
στου. τὸ γὰρ παθητικὸν ἀναδίδωσιν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς
ἡ ψυχή, τοῦ δὲ νοῦ μετέσχεν ἀπὸ τῆς κρείττονος

ἀρχῆς ἐγγενομένου.
28. Τῆς δὲ διπλῆς κοινωνίας ταύτης οὐδὲ ἡ

περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀπήλλακται φύσις, ἀλλὰ" ἑτερορ-
ρεποῦσα νῦν μὲν ὀρθοῦται τῇ ταὐτοῦ περιόδῳ
κράτος ἐχούσῃ καὶ διακυβερνᾷ τὸν κόσμον" ἔσται,
δέ τις χρόνου μοῖρα καὶ γέγονεν did πολλάκις, ἐν

1 Μ88. ; ἐγγινομένου -Aldine. ἀλλ᾽ ἡ -Τ.
8 E, Β : ὁρᾶται -all other mss., Aldine. * ἔστοιδι

5 See De Virtute 447 ς (οὐχ ἑνός τινος μεταβολῆς ἀλλὰ δυεῖν
ἅμα μάχης καὶ διαφορᾶς) with Quomodo Adulator ab Amico
Internoscatur 61 v-¥F; cf. Galen, De Placitis Hippoc. et Plat.
iv, 7 (p. 401, 7-8 [Mueller}).

> See 1029 τ infra (τῷ κρατίστῳ καὶ θειοτάτῳ μέρει) and
supra 1024 a (τὸ γὰρ νοερὸν... ἐκεῖνο μὲν . . . ἀπαθὲς...
with note a on page 215.

¢ See 1023 ἢ supra (τὸ παθητικὸν ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ TO σῶμα
ποιοτήτων). For this part of the human soul as mortal οὔ.
Timaeus 61 c 7-8 and 69 c 7--Ὲ 4, where, however, it is a
confection of the “‘ created gods ” (cf. also Timaeus 42 Ὁ 5-
Ἑ 4) and not derived from “ the divisible being ” of the psy-
chogony as it is according to Plutarch (see with what follows
in this par agraph 1024 a supra [. . . οὐχ ἑτέραν οὖσαν ἢ τὴν

. . συμπαθῆ τῷ αἰσθητῷ κίνησιν . . .]: cf. Jones, Platonism
of Plutarch, p. 12, note 36 and p. 85, note 41).

@ Plato, Phaedrus 237 vp 7-9, cited by Plutarch in Quaest.
Conviv. 746 pv, where as here he writes ἐπείσακτον instead of
Plato’s émixrnros and where he explicitly identifies the latter

258

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1026

and painful and the raptures and ecstasies of passion-
ate lovers and the conflicts of probity with in-
continence ὦ make plain the mixture of the divine and
impassive part? with the part that is mortal and
passible in the case of bodies.¢ Of these Plato him-
self denominates the latter an innate desire of
pleasures and the former an extraneous sentiment
longing for what is best,4 for the soul puts forth of
herself the affective part ὁ but partook of intelligence
because it got into her from the superior principle.’

28. From this dual association the nature of the
heavens is not exempt either; but it inclines this
way or that, at present being kept straight by the
dominant revolution of sameness 9 and piloting the
universe, whereas there will be and often has already
been a period of time in which its prudential part
with λόγος and the former with πάθος. For the meaning of
δόξα in this passage of the Phaedrus cf. G. J. de Vries, A
Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato, p. 85 ad 237 κ 2-3
and J. Sprute, Der Begriff der Doxa in der platonischen
Philosophie (G6ttingen, 1962), p. 113.

¢ See 1027 a infra (σύμφυτον ἔχουσαν ἐν ἑαυτῇ THY τοῦ κακοῦ
μοῖραν) and 1024 c supra (ἡ yap αἰσθητικὴ κίνησις, ἰδία 5 Set
οὖσα, ...) with note f there. Contrast De Virtute Morali
451 a (ὥσπερ ἐκ ῥίζης τοῦ παθητικοῦ τῆς σαρκὸς ἀναβλαστά-
νοντος).

866 1024 c supra (ὁ δὲ νοῦς... ἐγγενόμενος δὲ τῇ ψυχῇ)
and 1023 v supra (νοῦν... αὐτῇ... ἡ τῆς νοητῆς μέθεξις
ἀρχῆς ἐμπεποίηκε) ; and 866 also 1016 σ supra (3 Geog. ".".
καθάπερ εἶδος... TO voe ες ἀφ᾽ αὑτοῦ παρασχὼν .. .) with
Plat. Guasit. 1001 c an ade b t ere. There is no reason to
suppose, however, as ‘Thévenaz does (L’ Ame du Monde, p.
71), that by “‘ the superior principle ’’ here Plutarch meant
τὸ ev Which in 1024 p supra he called the principle of same-
ness ; but see infra 1027 a, note a on page 263.

σ Cf. Timaeus 36 c 7- 1 (κράτος δ᾽ ἔδωκεν τῇ ταὐτοῦ...
περιφορᾷ) ; on the “ revolution of sameness’ see supra
1024 x, note d.

259

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1026) ἧ τὸ μὲν φρόνιμον ἀμβλύνεται καὶ καταδαρθάνει
ήθης ἐμπιπλάμενον' τοῦ οἰκείου τὸ δὲ σώματι
σύνηθες ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ συμπαθὲς ἐφέλκεται καὶ
βαρύνει καὶ ἀνελίσσει τὴν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ παντὸς
πορείαν ἀναρρῆξαι δ᾽ οὐ δύναται παντάπασιν,

F ἀλλ᾽ ἀνήνεγκεν αὖθις τὰ βελτίω καὶ ἀνέβλεψε
πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα θεοῦ συνεπιστρέφοντος καὶ

1027 συναπευθύνοντος ." οὕτως ἐνδείκνυται πολλαχόθεν
ἡμῖν τὸ μὴ πᾶν ἔργον εἶναι θεοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀλλὰ
σύμφυτον ἐ ἔχουσαν ἐν ἑαυτῇ τὴν τοῦ κακοῦ μοῖραν
ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου διακεκοσμῆσθαι, τῷ μὲν ἑνὶ τὴν ἀπει-

1 ἐμπιμπλάμενον -f, m.

α
2 Eeorr. (2,96, συνεπ -Ε), Β' ; συνεπευθύνοντος -all other
Μ55.. Aldine.

« Of. Politicus 273 c 6—p 1, quoted by Plutarch at 1015 p
supra, and with Plutarch’s ἀμβλύνεται cf. ἀμβλύτερον in
Politicus 273 33. In Phaedrus 248 c 7 the subject of λήθης
τε καὶ κακίας πλησθεῖσα βαρυνθῇ is the individual soul. In
neither case does Plato mention “ falling asleep ” ; but in
1024 B supra (see note a there) “ dreamlike ”’ is applied to
the precosmic soul, and Albinus speaks of the soul of the
universe or its intelligence as being awakened by god, who
turns it to himself (Hpitome x, 3 and xiv, 3=pp. 59, 6
and 81, 6-7 [Louis]=pp. 165, 2 and 169, 31-33 [Hermann]).
Cf. R. M. Jones, Class. Phil., xxi (1926), pp. 107-108; and
J. H. Loenen, Mnemosyne, 4 Ser. x (1957), pp. 51-52, who
argues that Albinus got this notion from Plutarch.

> See 1024 a supra (... τὴν δοξαστικὴν . . . καὶ συμπαθῆ
τῷ αἰσθητῷ κίνησιν... ὑφεστῶσαν ἀίδιον ort

e Cf. Timaeus 36 ὁ 5-6 (τὴν μὲν δὴ ταὐτοῦ ... ἐπὶ δεξιὰ
περιήγαγεν .. ., on which ¢f. ἐχιρέρνα, iv [1959], pp. 220-221
[ + 1089) and Plutarch, De Iside 369 c (δυεῖν ἀντιπάλων δυνά-
μεων, τῆς μὲν ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιὰ «ον ὑφηγουμένης τῆς δ᾽ ἔμπαλιν ava-
στρεφούσης καὶ avaxAwons).

4 Cf. Politicus 270 p 3-4 and 286 B 9, and see 1015 a
supra with note 6 there.

¢ For the “ pattern ’’’ see supra 1023 c (page 223, note ¢)

260

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1026-1027

becomes dull and falls asleep, filled with forgetful-
ness of what is proper to 10,5 while the part intimate
with body and sensitive to it from the beginning ὃ
puts a heavy drag upon the right-hand course of the
sum of things ὁ and rolls it back ¢ without being able,
however, to disrupt it entirely, but the better part
recovers again and looks up at the pattern ὁ when god
helps with the turning and guidance.f Thus many
considerations make it plain to us that the soul is not
god’s work entirely 9 but that with the portion of evil
inherent in her” she has been arranged by god, who

and cf. Plato, Republic 540 a 7-9 of the individual soul. The
“ pattern ” here for Plutarch is not god or the “ thoughts of
god” (cf. Jones, Platonism of Plutarch, p. 102, note 72),
whereas according to Albinus in Epitome xiv, 3 (p. 81, 6-9
{Louis]=p. 169, 31-35 [Hermann]}) the soul or its intelligence
is awakened by god ὅπως ἀποβλέπουσα πρὸς τὰ νοητὰ αὐτοῦ
δέχηται τὰ εἴδη καὶ τὰς μορφάς, ἐφιεμένη τῶν ἐκείνου νοημάτων
(cf. in x, 3, p. 59, 2-4 [Louis]=p. 164, 35-37 [Hermann]).

7 Cf. Politicus 269 c 4-6 (τὸ πᾶν τόδε τοτὲ μὲν αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς
συμποδηγεῖ πορευόμενον καὶ συγκυκλεῖ.. . .). 270 a 3, and 273
E 1-4; and Republic 617 c 5-7 (τὴν μὲν Κλωθὼ τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ
ἐφαπτομένην ovvemiorpepe . . . THY ἔξω wensgnnts Plutarch
in De Defectu Orac. 426 c speaks of the gods τῶν κόσμων...
τῇ φύσει συναπευθύνοντας ἕκαστον. In the present passage the
unexpressed object.of συνεπιστρέφοντος καὶ συναπευθύνοντος iS
to be understood from 77. . . τοῦ παντὸς πορείαν supra, though
the phrase has sometimes been interpreted in the light of
eis ἑαυτὸν ἐπιστρέφει (1024 D supra with note a there) as
“ conversion ”’ of the soul or intelligence itself (Jones, Platon-
ism of Plutarch, p. 83, note 35; Witt, Albinus, p. 131;
‘Thévenaz, L’ Ame du Monde, p. 72). In De Iside 376 B it is
the rational motion of the universe itself that ἐπιστρέφει ποτὲ

καὶ προσάγεται... πείθουσα τὴν... τυφώνειον εἶτ᾽ αὖθις...
ἀνέστρεψε. . ..
od See 1014 c and 1016 c cited in note f, page 223 supra ;

cf. J. H. Loenen, Mnemosyne, 4 Ser. x (1957), p. 47.
h See supra 1026 © (with note 6 there), 1015 a (with note f
there) and 1015 ἘἙ.
261

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1027) ρίαν ὁρίσαντος wv’ οὐσία γένηται πέρατος pera-
σχοῦσα τῇ δὲ ταὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ ἑτέρου' δυνάμει τάξιν
“αἱ μεταβολὴν καὶ διαφορὰν καὶ ὁμοιότητα συμμί-
ξαντος πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις, ὡς ἀνυστὸν ἦν, κοινωνίαν
πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ φιλίαν epyacapevou δι᾽ ἀριθμῶν
καὶ ἁρμονίας.

29. Ilepi ὧν εἰ καὶ πολλάκις ἀκηκόατε καὶ πολ-
λοῖς ἐντετυχήκατε λόγοις καὶ γράμμασιν, οὐ χεῖρόν
ἐστι κἀμὲ βραχέως διελθεῖν, προεκθέμενον τὸ τοῦ

Β Πλάτωνος" “'᾿μίαν ἀφεῖλε τὸ" πρῶτον ἀπὸ παντὸς
μοῖραν, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην ἀφήρει διπλασίαν ταύτης,
τὴν δ᾽ αὖ τρίτην ἡμιολίαν μὲν τῆς δευτέρας τρι-
πλασίαν δὲ τῆς πρώτης, τετάρτην δὲ τῆς δευτέρας
διπλῆν, “πέμπτην δὲ τριπλῆν τῆς τρίτης, τὴν δὲ"
ἕκτην τῆς πρώτης ὀκταπλασίαν, ἑβδόμην de* ἑπτα-
καιεικοσαπλασίαν᾽" τῆς πρώτης. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα
συνεπληροῦτο τά τε διπλάσια καὶ τριπλάσια δια-
στήματα, μοίρας ἔτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀποτέμνων καὶ τιθεὶς
εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ τούτων, ὥστ᾽ ἐν ἑκάστῳ διαστήματι
δύο εἶναι μεσότητας, τὴν μὲν ταὐτῷ μέρει τῶν
ἄκρων αὐτῶν ὑπερέχουσαν καὶ ὑπερεχομένην τὴν

Ο δ᾽ ἴσῳ μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑπερέχουσαν ἴσῳ δὲ ὑπερ-

θάτέρου -Mau.

B. Miller (1873) from Timaeus 35 wn 4: ἀφείλετο -Mss.
τῆς δὲ -e, u, Escor. 72}.

τὴν δὲ ἑβδόμην δὲ -E 3 τὴν δὲ ἑβδόμην -B.

f (but with ¢ instead of a before 7), m, r; ἑπτακαιεικο-
σαπλασίω -E, B; ἑπτὰ καὶ εἰκοσαπλασίω -e, τι, Escor. 72,

Aldine.

aor ὦ NM μὸ

9 See supra 1014 Ὁ ΡΘΗ 185, note a), the end of chap. 26
(1026 A with note 6 there), and τοῦ ἑνὸς ὁρίζοντος τὸ πλῆθος
καὶ τῇ ἀπειρίᾳ πέρας ἐντιθέντος (1012 © supra) in the Xeno-
cratean interpretation of the psychogony, which Plutarch

262

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1027

with the one bounded her infinitude that by par-
ticipation in limit it might become substance ὦ and
through the agency of sameness and of difference
commingled order and change and differentiation
and similarity ὃ and in all these produced, so far as
was feasible, amity and union with one another by
means of numbers and concord.°¢

29. These last, though you have often heard and
read much talk and writing on the subject, it is as
well for me to explain briefly too after giving Plato’s
passage ὦ as a preface: © T‘irst from the total amount
he subtracted one portion, and thereafter he sub-
tracted one twice as large as this, and then the third
half as large again as the second and three times the
first, and the fourth double of the second, and the
fifth triple of the third, and the sixth eight times the
first, and the seventh twenty-seven times the first.
After that he filled in the double and triple intervals
by putting in between the former portions portions
that he continued to cut off from that original source
so as to have in each interval two means, one that
exceeds and falls short of the extremes by the same
fraction of them and one that exceeds and falls short

rejects (1013 c-p and 1023 v supra) but from this part of
which his own present formulation differs only in that the
product for Xenocrates was ἀριθμός while for him it is now
οὐσία. It is noteworthy moreover that in 1024 p supra (see
note f there) Plutarch in opposition to the Xenocratean in-
terpretation declared τὸ ἕν to be the principle of sameness as
distinguished from the ἀμέριστος οὐσία of the psychogony.

> See supra 1024 κε (with note ὁ there) and 1025 F.

¢ See supra 1013 c (page 175, note c).

ἃ Timaeus 35 Β 4—36 B 5, which follows immediately the
passage quoted by Plutarch at the beginning of this essay,
1012 B-c supra.

263

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1027) ἐχομένην." ἡμιολίων δὲ διαστάσεων καὶ ἐπιτρίτων
καὶ ἐπογδόων γενομένων ἐκ τούτων τῶν δεσμῶν ἐν
ταῖς πρόσθεν διαστάσεσι, τῷ τοῦ ἐπογδόου διαστή-
ματι τὰ ἐπίτριτα πάντα συνεπληροῦτο λείπων" αὐ-
τῶν ἑκάστου μόριον, τῆς τοῦ" μορίου ταύτης δια-
στάσεως λειφθείσης" ἀριθμοῦ πρὸς ἀριθμὸν ἐ ἐχούσης

τοὺς ὅρους ἐξ καὶ πεντήκοντα καὶ διακοσίων" πρὸς
τρία" καὶ τετταράκοντα καὶ διακόσια. ἐν τούτοις

ζητεῖται πρῶτον περὶ τῆς ποσότητος τῶν ἀριθμῶν,
δεύτερον περὶ τῆς τάξεως, τρίτον περὶ τῆς δυνά-
\ \ a / ees ΑΔ >

pews? περὶ μὲν τῆς ποσότητος τίνες εἰσίν, οὗς ἐν
τοῖς διπλασίοις καὶ τριπλασίοις" διαστήμασι λαμ-
͵ 4 \ — r ͵, 2979 εν ͵
D βάνει: περὶ δὲ τῆς" τάξεως πότερον ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς στί-
10 ΄ πὰ f ς , BD a ς
you” πάντας" ἐκθετέον ὡς Θεόδωρος ἢ μᾶλλον ὡς
Κράντωρ ἐν τῷ A” σχήματι, τοῦ πρώτου κατὰ
κορυφὴν τιθεμένου καὶ χωρὶς μὲν τῶν διπλασίων
χωρὶς δὲ τῶν τριπλασίων ἐν δυσὶ" στίχοις" ὑὕποτατ-

1 τὴν μὲν ταὐτῷ. .. ἴσῳ δὲ ὑπερεχομένην -f, m, r (but with
ἄκρων repeated and ὑ ὑπερέχουσαν ἴσῳ δὲ omitted by r), Timaeus
36 43-53 καὶ ὑπερεχομένην τὴν δ᾽ ἴσῳ μὲν Kar’ ἀριθμὸν ὑ ὑπερέχου-
σαν -omitted by e, U, Escor. 72, Aldine ; ; τὴν μὲν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν
ἄκρων ἴσῳ τε ὑπερέχουσαν καὶ ὑπερεχομένην τὴν δὲ ταὐτῷ μέρει
τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῶν ὑπερέχουσαν καὶ ὑπερεχομένην

2 Dibner from Timaeus 36 B 1-2 (A), see 1020. B infra (f,
m, r) and Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 227, 30 and
230, 8 [Diehl]); συνεπλήρου τὸ λεῖπον -E, B, 6, ucor-
(συνεπλῆρον τὸ λειπὸν -u"), Escor. 723 συνεπλήρου λείπων -f,
m, ©. 8 τῆς δὲ τοῦ -f, τὴ, r

4 ληφθείσης -E, B* (ει superscript over first ἡ --ϑοστ.),
Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum ii, Ὁ. 230, 29 { Diehl]).

oe Kal ν καὶ σ -Β. § zpia -omitted by f.

7 πρὸς γ καὶ μ καὶ o -Β.

8. καὶ τριπλασίοις -omitted by ἐπ f, πὶ, r, Escor. 72,
Aldine. 9. τῆς -omitted by e, u

10 στείχου -U (cf. ad ἐν δυσὶ στίχοις infra).

1 EK, B; πάντα -all other mss., Aldine.

264

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1027

by amounts numerically equal.? Since as a result of
these links in the previous intervals there came to be
intervals of three to two and of four to three and of
nine to eight, he filled in all the intervals of four to
three with the interval of nine to eight leaving a
fraction of each of them, this remaining interval of
the fraction having the terms of the numerical ratio
256 to 248. ὃ Here the first question is concerned
with the quantity, the second with the arrangement,
the third with the function of the numbers ¢: con-
cerning the quantity what numbers they are that he
adopts in the double and triple intervals, concerning
the arrangement whether one is to set them out as
Theodorus ὦ does all in a single row or rather as
Crantor ὁ does in the figure of a lambda with the
first placed at the apex and the double and triple
numbers ranged separately from each other in two

* The former is the harmonic mean and the latter the
arithmetical mean (see 1019 c-& and 1028 a infra).

> For the procedure described and the numerical values
resulting from it cf. B. Kytzler, Hermes, Ixxxvii (1959),
pp. 405-406.

¢ Three but not quite the same three questions are posed
by Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 99, 17-100, 2 (Wrobel) =
p. 83, 20-27 (Waszink) ; cf. B. W. Switalski, Des Chalcidius
Kommentar zu Plato’s Timaeus (Miinster, 1902), pp. 81-82.

4 Theodorus of Soli; see chap. 20 (1022 c-p) infra and
De Defectu Orac. 427 a-x.

ε Crantor, frag. 7 (Kayser)=frag. 7 (Mullach, Frag.
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 145) ; see chap. 20 (1022 c-x) infra, and
for Crantor as the first exegete of Plato see 1012 pb, note ς
supra.

12 λάμβδα -E, B.

18. ἐν τρισὶ -Ὁ΄

14 στείχοις -u (cf. ad στίχου supra and 1022 c infra: δύο
στίχους [στοίχους -f, τη, r]).

265

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

4 \ \ “~ / \ πιὰ ld /
(1027) τομένων’ περὶ δὲ τῆς χρείας καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως τί
ποιοῦσι παραλαμβανόμενοι πρὸς τὴν σύστασιν τῆς
ψυχῆς. |
“-.μ > \ ~ / ,
30. Πρῶτον οὖν περὶ τοῦ πρώτου παραιτησό-
μεθα' τοὺς λέγοντας ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων αὐτῶν
ἀπόχρη θεωρεῖν ἣν ἔχει τά τε διαστήματα φύσιν
αἵ τε ταῦτα συμπληροῦσαι μεσότητες, ἐν οἷς ἄν τις
ἀριθμοῖς ὑπόθηται χώρας ἔχουσι δεκτικὰς" μεταξὺ
τῶν εἰρημένων ἀναλογιῶν ὁμοίως περαινομένης
EK τῆς διδασκαλίας. Kav γὰρ ἀληθὲς" 7 τὸ λεγόμε-
νον, ἀμυδρὰν ποιεῖ τὴν μάθησιν ἄνευ παραδειγ-
μάτων ἄλλης τε θεωρίας ἀπείργει χάριν ἐχούσης
’ > Υ nn oo > \ A ’ 9 /
οὐκ ἀφιλόσοφον. ἂν οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς μονάδος apéa-
μενοι τοὺς διπλασίους καὶ τριπλασίους ἐν μέρει τι-
θῶμεν, ὡς αὐτὸς ὑφηγεῖται, γενήσονται κατὰ TO°
ἑξῆς ὅπου μὲν τὰ δύο καὶ τέσσαρα καὶ ὀκτὼ" ὅπου
δὲ τρία καὶ ἐννέα καὶ εἰκοσιεπτά,Ϊ συνάπαντες μὲν
1 ἀπαραιτησόμεθα -e, ἃ (ap Cancelled -uct-), Escor. 72
(ἀπαιτησόμεθα -in margin) ; ἀπαρτησόμεθα -Aldine.
2 δέ τινας -e1 (corrected 635), τι.
35 Ἐν, Bs καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἀληθὲς -e, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine;

Kal yap ἀληθὲς -u.
4K, B; ἀφηγεῖται -e, u, f, τὰ, Escor. 72, Aldine;

ow
ὑφηγεῖται -¥.

5 τὸ -Wyttenbach; τὸν -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine;
τοὺς -f, τὰ, τ.

6 +a δύο καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα καὶ ὀκτὼ -Maurommates (so also
the versions of Xylander and Amyot); τὸ δεύτερον καὶ τὸ

τέταρτον καὶ ὄγδοον -MSS.
7 τρία καὶ ἐννέα καὶ εἰκοσιεπτά -Maurommates (so also the

versions of Xylander and Amyot) ; τρίτον καὶ ἔνατον (ἔννατον
-E, B) καὶ εἰκοστοέβδομον -Μ88.

266

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1027

rows underneath, and concerning their use or func-
tion what effect is produced by their employment for
the composition of the soul.

30. First, then, with regard to the first question
we shall decline to follow those who say® that it
suffices to observe in the ratios themselves the nature
of the intervals and of the means with which they
are filled in, as the directions are carried out alike
with whatever numbers one may assume that have
spaces between them to receive the prescribed pro-
portions.? Our reason is that, even if what they say
be true, by the absence of examples it obscures the
understanding of the subject © and debars us from
another speculation that has a charm not unphilo-
sophical.4 So, if beginning from the unit we place
the double and triple numbers alternately’ as
indicated by Plato himself,f the result will be in
succession on one side two, four, and eight and on
the other side three, nine, and twenty-seven, seven

¢ Perhaps Eudorus, following Crantor (see 1020 c-p
infra).

> See 1020 a infra (. . . τῶν αὐτῶν λόγων διαμενόντων, ὑπο-
δοχὰς ποιοῦσιν ἀρκούσας ...) and 1020 v infra (λόγον μὲν ἔχον
τὸν αὐτὸν ἀριθμὸν δὲ τὸν διπλάσιον): and with the latter cf.
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 69, 7-9 (Hiller) in the same context :
οὐδὲν δὲ κωλύει καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἀριθμῶν τὸν αὐτὸν εὑρίσκειν λόγον

. οὐ γὰρ ἀριθμὸν ὡρισμένον ἔλαβεν ὁ Ἰ]λάτων ἀλλὰ λόγον
ἀριθμοῦ.

¢ Cf. eg. Plato, Politicus 277 υ 1-2.

@ i.e. the arithmological speculations about the ‘‘ remark-
able numbers ”’ (1017 &© infra), to which Plutarch devotes
most of the next three chapters (cf. Burkert, Weisheit und
Wissenschaft, p. 375, n. 59).

¢ See 1017 © infra (ἐναλλὰξ καὶ ἰδίᾳ τάττεσθαι... τοὺς ap-
tious . . . Kal πάλιν τοὺς περιττούς.

f See 1017 © infra (ἧ καὶ δῆλός ἐστι βουλόμενος... .) and
1027 r—1028 a infra (μονονουχὶ δεικνύων ἡμῖν... .).

267

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1027) ἑπτὰ κοινῆς δὲ λαμβανομένης τῆς μονάδος ἄχρι
τεσσάρων' τῷ πολλαπλασιασμῷ προιόντες ." οὐ
43
γὰρ ἐνταῦθα μόνον ἀλλὰ πολλαχόθι τῆς τετράδος ἡ
Ε πρὸς τὴν ἑβδομάδα συμπάθεια γίγνεται κατάδηλος.
7 μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν ὑ ὑμνουμένη τετρα-
κτύς, τὰ ἕξ καὶ τριάκοντα, θαυμαστὸν ἔχειν δοκεῖ
> συγκεῖσθαι μὲν ἐκ πρώτων ἀρτίων τεσσάρων
καὶ πρώτων περιττῶν τεσσάρων γίγνεσθαι" δὲ συ-
ζυγία τετάρτη τῶν ἐφεξῆς συντιθεμένων. πρώτη
μὲν γάρ ἐστι συζυγία ἣ τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ τῶν δυεῖν
1017 C δευτέρα (11. δὲ ΠΕ τῶν εριῶν" καὶ τεσσάρων"
D τρίτη δὲ ἡ τῶν €' καὶ ς΄, wy” οὐδεμία ποιεῖ τετρά-
γωνον οὔτ᾽ αὐτὴ καθ᾽ a οὔτε μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων:
e \ ~ , \ 7Ὰ13 , , 9 t
{7 δὲ τῶν ζ΄ καὶ η΄)" τετάρτη μέν ἐστι συντιθεμένη
1 mss. 3 τεσσα ixovra in margin of f, τη, r.
ὁ προιόντες - aurommates ; προιόντων -MSS.

ἢ -f, m, Aldine.
‘ oa τριάκοντα -B (cf. De Iside 381 F—382a) : καὶ τὰ
τριάκοντα -4}} other mss. 5 ὦ -f, m, Fr.

6 γίνεται -f, m, τ, Aldine.

7 EB, B, ef. De Iside 382 a ; συντεθειμένων -all other mss,
Aldine. 8 ἐστι -omitted by r.

® δευτέρα περιττῶν (chap. 30 Ὁ [1027 Ὁ] infra) -E, B;
δευτέρα (δευτέρα δὲ -Ε) τῶν περιττῶν -f, m, r, Aldine ; δεύγερμε
τῶν -ε,α, Escor. 72 (ρατῶνπε -Escor. 72 in margin) ; see 1022
Ἑ supra (chap. 21 init. ), apparatus criticus, page 212, note 2.

10 δὲ ἡ τῶν τριῶν -all Mss., following 1017 c supra (chap. 10

ad finem): κόσμον . . . vac. 4-E, vac. 8 -Β ; xoopov... vac.
5 -f, m, vac. 3 - eee ev ene vac, 4. ove -f, mM, rT 3 κόσμον . ἔνθαϊ
-e, ἃ ; κόσμον. ev... vac. ῶ.... -Εδβοοτ. 72; see 1022 Ἐ

supra (chap. 91 init.), apparatus criticus, page 212, note 2.
1 τεσσάρων St ne aa (τετράδος -Xylander); καὶ μιᾶς
-MSS. (μιᾶς. . . vac. 3... -E with illegible correction in
margin). 12 καὶ -F.
18 <q δὲ τῶν ζ΄ καὶ η΄) -added by Maurommates; «ζ΄ καὶ
n’> added after τετάρτη μέν ἐστι ~Xylander, and similarly
Amyot’s version.

268

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1027, 1017

numbers in all but, the unit being taken as common,”
progressing to four by multiplication.2. Not only
here, in fact, but in many cases does the affinity of
the tetrad with the hebdomad become manifest.°
So thirty-six, the tetractys celebrated by the Pytha-
goreans, is thought to have a remarkable property
in being the sum of the first four even and the first
four odd numbers and in coming to be as the fourth
pair of the successive numbers added together ὦ : for
the first pair is that of one and two and the second
(11.) that of three and four and the third that of five
and six, none of which pairs either by itself or to-
gether with the others produces a square number ;
<but that of seven and eight) is the fourth, and being

@ See infra 1017 vb (τὴν μὲν μονάδα, κοινὴν οὖσαν ἀρχὴν . . .),
1018 ¥F (ἡ μονὰς ἐπίκοινος οὖσα .. .), 1027 F (τὴν yap μονάδα
κοινὴν οὖσαν ἀμφοῖν προτάξας... .); cf. Chalcidius, Platonis
Timaeus, Ὁ. 104, 20 (Wrobel)=pp. 87, 26-88, 1 (Waszink) :
** communi videlicet accepta singularitate.”

> Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 95, 2-13 (Hiller).

¢ Cf. Philo Jud., Quaestiones in Exodum ii, 87 (p. 527
{Aucher]=p. 137 (L.C.L.]) and De Specialibus Legibus ii,
40 (v, p. 95, 15-20 [Cohn]); Nicomachus, Hacerpta 6
(Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 277, 18-19 [Jan]) and Nico-
machus in Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., Ὁ. 58, 10-19 and
p. 59, 10-18 (De Falco).

4 Cf. De Iside 381 Fr—382 a; Chalcidius, Platonis
Timaeus, p. 104, 10-15 (Wrobel)=p. 87, 19-22 (Waszink) ;
Philo Jud., Quaestiones in Genesin iii, 49 (p. 233 [Aucher]=
pp. 247-248 [D.C.L.]). In all these passages, as here, one is
explicitly an odd number (cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 21,
24-22, 5 [Hiller]; Speusippus, frag. 4, 22-25 [Lang]),
whereas for Plutarch ordinarily three is the first odd number
(see 1018 c infra: ... ἔκ τε τῆς ἀρχῆς Kal... τοῦ πρώτου
περιττοῦ). For 36 as the sum of a “ tetractys ” formed in a
different way cf. Nicomachus, Excerpta 7 and 10 (Musici
Scriptores Graeci, pp. 279, 8-15 and 282, 10-14 [Jan]); and
for the special properties of 36 see 1018 c-p infra.

269

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1017) δὲ ταῖς προτέραις tpraxovraeé’ τετράγωνον παρ-

, e δὲ ~ e \ / > , 3
ἔσχεν. ἡ δὲ τῶν ὑπὸ Π]λάτωνος ἐκκειμένων ἀριθ-
- A > , ” ; \ /
μῶν τετρακτὺς ἐντελεστέραν ἔσχηκε THY γένεσιν,
~ \ 9 , 3 ὔ , ~ 4
τῶν μὲν ἀρτίων ἀρτίοις διαστήμασι τῶν δὲ περιτ-
τῶν περιττοῖς πολλαπλασιασθέντων: περιέχει δὲ
λ 2
τὴν μὲν μονάδα, κοινὴν" οὖσαν ἀρχὴν ἀρτίων καὶ
περιττῶν, τῶν δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῇ τὰ μὲν δύο καὶ τρία
πρώτους ἐπιπέδους, τὰ δὲ" τέσσαρα καὶ ἐννέα πρώ-
τους τετραγώνους, τὰ δ᾽ ὀκτὼ καὶ εἰκοσιεπτὰ
7 ΄, . | a, ~ ” , o ,
πρώτους κύβους ev* ἀριθμοῖς, ἔξω λόγου τῆς μονά-
, 5 - \ a ee , >
dos τιθεμένης.“ ἡ Kal δῆλός ἐστι βουλόμενος οὐκ
ἐπὶ μιᾶς εὐθείας ἅπαντας ἀλλ᾽ ἐναλλὰξ καὶ ἰδίᾳ
’ \ 3 ,ὔ 3 3 ’, \ ’,
τάττεσθαι τοὺς ἀρτίους μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων καὶ πάλιν
τοὺς περιττούς, ὡς" ὑπογέγραπται. οὕτως αἱ
συζυγίαι τῶν ὁμοίων ἔσονται πρὸς τοὺς ὁμοίους

1 προτέραις τριακονταὲξ -Diibner; προ. .. vac. 9... τ
. vac. 3... τριάκοντα, εἰ (ἐξ. -B)... . vac. νον « rerpa-

γωνον -Ἰὰ, Bs πρώταις τριάκοντα ἐξ (As -f, m, r) τετράγωνον -all
other mss., Aldine.

2 κοινὴν -omitted by r.
τὰ δὲ τὰ δὲ -B.
ev -omitted by r.
θεμένης -f, m, τ, Aldine.
ws -Xylander (so Amyot’s version); καὶ -MSS.; ws καὶ
-B. Miller (1873).

7 The figure as below in the margins of Εἰ, e, τι, Escor. 72 ;
A with the same numbers in the margins of B, f, m; omitted
altogether by r and Aldine (see page 272 infra).

ον me ᾧᾧ

α Yor the term “ tetractys ” used of this figure cf. Theon
Smyrnaeus, p. 94, 12-14 and p. 95, 2-8 (Hiller) and Chal-
cidius, Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 104, 15-22 (Wrobel)=pp. 87,
29-88, 2 (Waszink): “‘. .. quadratura cognominatur quia
continet quattuor quidem limites in duplici latere. ...”

270

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1017

added to the preceding pairs it gives thirty-six, a
square number. The tetractys of the numbers set out
by Plato,t however, has been generated in a more
consummate way,” the multiplication of the even by
even intervals and of the odd by odd ; and it contains
the unit, to be sure, as being the common principle
of even and odd numbers,°¢ but of the numbers under
the unit contains two and three, the first plane
numbers,? and four and nine, the first square num-
bers, and eight and twenty-seven, the first cubic
numbers,’ the unit being left out of account, which
makes it quite obvious that he wishes 7 them to be
arranged not all in one straight line but alternately,
that is the even numbers together by themselves and
on the other hand the odd numbers as drawn below.’
In this way numbers that are similar to one another

> See 1019 8 infra (chap. 14 sub finem): ὥστε πολὺ τῆς
Πυθαγορικῆς . . . τελειοτέραν.

¢ Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 94, 15-16 (Hiller) and Chal-
cidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 104, 24-25 (Wrobel)=p. 88,
3-4 (Waszink).

@ See also 1022 ἢ infra (ἐπιπέδων ἐπιπέδοις . . .) and De
Defectu Orac. 415 ©, where in the same context two and
three are referred to as ‘‘ the first two plane numbers.”
According to Nicomachus (Arithmetica Introductio 11, vii, 3
[pp. 86, 21-87, 7, Hoche]) the plane numbers begin with
three ; and Theon Smyrnaeus in this context calls both two
and three “‘ linear’ (p. 95, 17-19 [Hiller], cf. p. 23, 11-14),
although elsewhere he calls two itself “ oblong” (p. 31,
15-17). In De Jside 367 Ἐ-τ Plutarch himself treats square
and oblong numbers as species of plane numbers.

¢ For the expression, ἐπιπέδους . . . τετραγώνους . . . KU-
Bous ἐν ἀριθμοῖς, cf. lamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 82, 17 (De
Faleco)=Speusippus, frag. 4, 8-9 (Lang).

f See 1027 Ἑ supra with note / there.

9 i.e. in accordance with Crantor’s interpretation (see
1027 » supra with note e there), page 273 infra.

271

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1017) καὶ ποιήσουσιν ἀριθμοὺς ἐπιφανεῖς κατά TE’ σύν-
θεσιν. καὶ πολλαπλασιασμὸν ἐξ ἀλλήλων.

Lf

4
12. Kara σύνθεσιν οὕτως" τὰ δύο Kat τὰ τρία"
Ἁ / /
πέντε γίγνεται, τὰ τέσσαρα καὶ τὰ ἐννέα" τριακαί-
> \ 3 4 / A
δεκα, τὰ δ᾽ ὀκτὼ Kal εἰκοσιεπτὰ πέντε καὶ τριά-
Ν A A ς
κοντα. τούτων γὰρ τῶν ἀριθμῶν οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ
, ¢ > \ , > 4
τὰ μὲν πέντε τρόμον," ὅπερ ἐστὶ φθόγγον," ἐκά-
“ ~ , ~
F λουν, οἰόμενοι τῶν τοῦ τόνου διαστημάτων πρῶτον
\ \ , 7 \ \
εἶναι φθεγκτὸν τὸ πέμπτον. τὰ δὲ τριακαίδεκα
aA δ ta \ 3 ww “ ,
λεῖμμα, καθάπερ IlAatwv τὴν εἰς toa τοῦ τόνου
4 \ \ [4 A 4
διανομὴν ἀπογιγνώσκοντες, TA δὲ πέντε καὶ τριά-
1 +¢ -omitted by f, m, r, Escor. 72.
2 καὶ τρία -f, m, Fr. 3 καὶ ἐννέα -f, m, r, Aldine.
4 Aldine; cy -E, B, ἢ, m,r3 τρισκαίδεκα -e, ἃ, Escor. 72.
5 Tannery (Mémoires Scientifiques ix [1929], pp. 379-
380) ; τροφόν -Mss. δ φθόγγου -u.
7 τὸ πέμπτον -omitted by B : τὸν πέμπτον -f, mer,

9 See 1022 Ὁ infra (chap. 20 sub finem): ἐπιπέδων ἐπιπέδοις
... συζυγούντων, and page 253, note d supra.

» Despite the “ five tetrachords ”’ of 1029 a-s infra and
the musical significance ascribed to five in De E 389 p-F
and De Defectu Orac. 430 a there is to my knowledge no
relevant parallel to this enigmatic passage ; and in default
of one I adopt Tannery’s emendation and explanation as the
most plausible yet suggested, adding only that the use of
τόνος alone as here for ‘“‘ mode”’ or “ scale”’ is well estab-

272

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1017

will form the pairs* and both by addition and by
multiplication with each other will produce remark-
able numbers.

12. By addition as follows: two plus three are
five, four plus nine are thirteen, and eight plus
twenty-seven are thirty-five. These numbers are
remarkable, for of them the Pythagoreans called five
“tremor,” which is to say “sound,” thinking that
the fifth of the scale’s intervals is first to be sounded,?
called thirteen “ leimma,” denying as did Plato that
the tone is divisible into equal parts,’ and called

lished (cf. De E 389 τ [... τοὺς πρώτους εἴτε τόνους ἢ τρόπους
εἴθ᾽ ἁρμονίας χρὴ καλεῖν. . .] ; Cleonides, Introductio 12
[ Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 202, 6-8 and 203, 4-6, Jan] ;
Porphyry, Jn Ptolemaet Harmonica, Ὁ. 82, 3-6 [Diiring}),
though it is disturbing to find it used in a different sense in
the very next clause. For a different interpretation of τὸ
πέμπτον cf. H. Weil et Th. Reinach, Plutarque : Dela Mu-
sique (Paris, 1900), p. Lv1, note 5,

¢ See 1018 & infra with note ὦ there (. . διὸ καὶ τὰ τρια-
καίδεκα λεῖμμα καλοῦσιν .. .) and 1020 Ἐ-- infra (. . . οἱ δὲ
Πυθαγορικοὶ τὴν μὲν εἰς toa τομὴν ἀπέγνωσαν αὐτοῦ... ... AS
for καθάπερ Πλάτων, I take it with what follows (see 1021
Ὁ-Ἑ infra [. . . καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν 6 φησιν ὁ Πλάτων . . .]), giving
Plutarch the benefit of the doubt, for Plato did not “ call
thirteen ‘ leimma,’”’ although some said that he had done
so (cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 69, 4-6 [Hiller]).

273

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1017) κοντα ἁρμονίαν, ὅτι συνέστηκεν ἐκ δυεῖν κύβων
πρώτων' ἀπ᾽ ἀρτίου καὶ περιττοῦ γεγονότων ἐκ
/ > ~ a ~ ~
τεσσάρων δ᾽ ἀριθμῶν, τοῦ ς΄ καὶ τοῦ η΄ καὶ τοῦ 6
A A \ \
καὶ τοῦ" ιβ΄, τὴν ἀριθμητικὴν καὶ τὴν ἁρμονικὴν
1018 ἀναλογίαν περιεχόντων. ἔσται δὲ" “μᾶλλον ἡ, δύ-
ναμις ἐκφανὴς ἐπὶ διαγράμματος. ἔστωτὸ αβγδὃ
παραλληλόγραμμον ὀρθογώνιον ἔχον τῶν πλευρῶν
τὴν a βὶ πέντε τὴν δὲ α ὃ ἑπτά: καὶ τμηθείσης τῆς
μὲν ἐλάττονος εἰς δύο καὶ τρία κατὰ τὸ κ τῆς δὲ
μείζονος εἰς τρία καὶ τέσσαρα κατὰ τὸ A διήχθωσαν
ἀπὸ τῶν τομῶν εὐθεῖαι τέμνουσαι ἀλλήλας κατὰ τὸ
K wv καὶ κατὰ TOA μ E καὶ ποιοῦσαι τὸ μὲν a κ
war’ ἐξ τὸ δὲ κ B E μὲ ἐννέα τὸ δὲ X μ ν ὃ ὀκτὼ τὸ
δὲ μ Ey v δώδεκα τὸ δὲ ὅλον παραλληλόγραμ-
μον τριάκοντα καὶ πέντε, τοὺς τῶν συμφωνιῶν
τῶν πρώτων λόγους ἐν τοῖς τῶν χωρίων ἀριθμοῖς
Β εἰς ἃ διήρηται περιέχον. τὰ μὲν γὰρ" ἐξ καὶ ὀκτὼ
τὸν ἐπίτριτον ἔχει λόγον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων,
τὰ δὲ ἕξ καὶ ἐννέα τὸν ἡμιόλιον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ διὰ πέντε,
ΤΥ, \ (168 , Το \ -
τὰ δὲ ἕξ καὶ ιβ΄" τὸν διπλάσιον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ διὰ πασῶν.
πρῶτον Ὕ.
τοῦ -omitted by E, Β, 6, Escor. 72, Aldine.
δὲ -omitted by B.
ἡ -omitted by ἢ
Aus -r.
ποιοῦσαι -omitted by ἢ, r3 καὶ ποιοῦσαι ... τὸ δὲ κβξμ
-omitted by e, u, Escor. 72, m (καὶ [ποιοῦσαι omitted] τὸ μὲν
ακλμ ἕξ τὸ δὲ ΧΡ ΙΣ -m? in margin), Aldine.
7 ακλμ -f, m (in margin), r.
» κβμξ -f, m (in margin) ; κβμξ “Yr.
9 yap -Ε, B, e, U, Escor. 72; οὖν -f, m, r, Aldine.
10 KE, B; xai 7a uf’ -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine.

an ῳὡ ND »

n

¢ With this and the rest of the chapter through διὰ τοῦτο
καὶ ἁρμονίαν . . ἐκάλεσαν cf. Lamblichus, Theolog. Arith.,

274:

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1017-1018

thirty-five “ concord’? because it consists of the first
two cubes produced from even and odd ὃ and of four
numbers, six and eight and nine and twelve, which
comprise the arithmetical and the harmonic pro-
portion.° The force of this will be more evident in a
diagram. Let afyé be a rectangular parallelogram
with five as the side a8 and seven as the side αὃ ;
and, the lesser having been divided into two and
three at κ and the greater into three and four at A,
from the points of section let there be produced
along κμν and Ayvé straight lines that intersect and
make axpaA six, «B&u nine, λμνδ eight, p&yv twelve,
and the whole parallelogram thirty-five, comprising
in the numbers of the areas into which it has been
divided the ratios of the primary consonances.? For
the areas six and eight have the sesquitertian ratio,
in which the fourth consists ; the areas six and nine
the sesquialteran, in which the fifth consists; the
areas six and twelve the duple, in which the octave
p. 63, 7-23 (De Falco), 1.6. Nicomachus (cf. tbid., p. 56, 8-9
and Gnomon, V [1929], p. 554).

ὃ 23 +38=35; ef. Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 63, 7-9
(De Falco).

¢ 4.e. 35=64+8+9+412, in which 8 is the harmonic mean
and 9 is the arithmetical mean of the extremes, 6 and 12;
see 1019 c-p infra and cf. Nicomachus, Arithmetica Intro-
ductio τι, xxix, 3-4 (p. 146, 2-23 [Hoche]) and Iamblichus,
In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem, pp. 122, 12-
125, 13 (Pistelli).

@ See 1019 pv infra (τὰ πρῶτα σύμφωνα) : cf. Theon
Smyrnaeus, p. 51, 18-20 (Hiller), [Alexander], Metaph.,
p. 834, 1-2, and [Plutarch], De Musica 1139 c-p (... τὰ
κυριώτατα διαστήματα ...). Since the octave consists of a
fourth and a fifth, only the latter two were usually considered
to be strictly “‘ primary ”’ in the sense of “ simple’’ con-
sonances (cf. Ptolemy, Harmonica, p. 11, 24-25 [Diiring] ;
Porphyry, Jn Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 96, 12-20 [Diiring)).

275

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

Ν A a
(1018) ἔνεστι δὲ καὶ ὁ τοῦ τόνου λόγος ἐπόγδοος wy" ἐν
a ? ’ ὁ ‘i A
Tots ἐννέα καὶ ὀκτώ." διὰ τοῦτο καὶ" ἁρμονίαν τὸν

α K B

vg

ἐξ

os.

λ a3 g
τ τ
ξ ὁ
- yn

ὃ ν Y

περιέχοντα τοὺς λόγους τούτους ἀριθμὸν ἐκάλεσαν.
ἑξάκις δὲ" γενόμενος τὸν τῶν" δέκα ποιεῖ καὶ δια-

1 ὧν -omitted by Εἰ, Β.

2 The figure infra set into text -Εἰ ; in margin (ἐπίτριτος
omitted and ἐπόγδοος τόνος along the line yéB in the rectangles
ιβ and @) -B; in margin with letters only -f, m; in margin
(right angled parallelogram divided into four equal parts

276

;

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1018

consists; and the ratio of the tone, being sesquioc-
tavan, is present too in the areas nine and eight. This

a κ β

fifth
alteran

ὃ v Y

is precisely the reason why they called “᾿ concord”’ the
number that comprises these ratios. When multi-
plied by six, moreover, it produces the number 210,

with letters only, « and v omitted) -e, u, Escor. 72 (can-
celled) ; figure omitted by r.

8. καὶ -f, τὴ, r, Aldine; μὲν -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72.

4 δὲ -omitted by r. 5 τὸν τὸν -Τ΄.

2717

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1018) κοσίων ἀριθμόν, ἐν ὅσαις ἡμέραις λέγεται τὰ
ἑπτάμηνα τῶν βρεφῶν τελεογονεῖσθαι.
18. Πάλιν δ᾽ ἀφ᾽" ἑτέρας ἀρχῆς, κατὰ πολλαπλα-
σιασμόν' ὁ μὲν δὶς γ΄ τὸν S ποιεῖ," ὁ δὲ τετράκις
Ο ἐννέα τὸν As’,* 6 δ᾽ ὀκτακις Kl’ tov ais’. Kat
ἔστιν ὁ μὲν ς΄ τέλειος, ἴσος ὧν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μέρεσι,
καὶ γάμος καλεῖται διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀρτίου καὶ περιτ-
τοῦ σύμμιξιν. ἔτι δὲ συνέστηκεν ἔκ τε τῆς ἀρχῆς
καὶ τοῦ {πρώτου " ἀρτίου καὶ τοῦ πρώτου περιτ-
τοῦ. ὁ δὲ As’ πρῶτός ἐστι τετράγωνος ἅμα καὶ
τρίγωνος, τετράγωνος μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἑξάδος τρίγωνος
δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς oydoddos: καὶ γέγονε πολλαπλασιασμῷ
μὲν τετραγώνων δυεῖν, τοῦ τέσσαρα τὸν ἐννέα
1 Diibner (ὅσαις λέγεται ἡμέραις -Nylander); ὅσαις (.. .
vac. ὦ... -Ε : no lacuna -B) μοίραις λέγεται -E, Bs ὅσαις
ἀν -e, Escor. 72 [ἐν ὅσαις in margin] ; se -U3 ὅσεσι
-Aldine) λέγεται μοίραις -c, ἃ, f, m,'r,; Esecor; 72,

2 Xylander : ἐφ᾽ -Mss. 3 ποιοῦσιν -e, u, Escor. 72.
4 FE, B, ἢ, m, r3 τριάκοντα καὶ ἕξ -e, U3 τριακονταέξ
-Fscor. 79]

5 «πρώτου» -added in margin of Aldine from codex of
Donatus Polus and implied by Amyot’ 8 version : ; misplaced
by Nylander before the a ἀρτίου of διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀρτίου just above.

δ᾽ καὶ τοῦ πρώτου ἀρτίου καὶ περιττοῦ -Wyttenbach : καὶ τοῦ
ἀρτίου καὶ τοῦ περιττοῦ πρώτου -B. Miiller (1873).

¢ Cf. lamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 51, 16-19 and p. 64,
5-13 (De Falco); Censorinus, De Die Natali xi, 5 (pp. 19,
28-20, 2 [Hultsch}); Macrobius, Jn Somnium Scipionis 1,
vi, 15-16; Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, pp. 34,
28-35, 23 (Kroll).

> i.e. the pairs of numbers in the triangle of Crantor
(1017 © supra [chap. 11 sub finem]), which in the preceding
chapter gave the sums 5, 13, and 35, now by multiplication
yield the products 6, 6?, and 63,

¢ See Quaest. Conviv. 738 ¥ and Lycurgus v, 13 (42 F)
and cf. Euclid, Elements vii, Def. 22; Nicomachus, Arith-

278

ie Soe a

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1018

the number of days in which it is said seven months’
babes are born fully formed.*

13. And again making a fresh start, by multipli-
cation: twice three makes six, four times nine thirty-
six, and eight times twenty-seven 216.2 Now, six is a
perfect number, being equal to the sum of its
factors, and is called marriage by reason of the
commixture of the even and odd?; and furthermore
it consists of the principle and the first) even and
the first odd number.’ Thirty-six is the first number
at once square and triangular, square from six and
triangular from eight’; and it is the result of the
multiplication of two squares, nine multiplied by

metica Introductio 1, xvi, 2-3 (pp. 39, 14-40, 22 [Hoche]) ;
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 45, 10-22 and p. 101, 6-9 (Hiller);
Anatolius in Jamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 17, 12-13 and
Ρ. 42, 19-20 (De Falco).

4 Cf. Philo Jud., Quaestiones in Genesin ili, 38 (p. 206
[Aucher]=pp. 224-225 [L.C.L.]) with Joannes Lydus, De
Mensibus ii, 11 (p. 32, 4-14 [Wuensch]); Clement of
Alexandria, Stromata vi, xvi, 139, 3; Anatolius in lam-
blichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 43, 3-9 (De Falco).

¢ For two as the first even number and three as the first
odd number see Quaest. Romanae 264 a, De H 388 a, De
Defectu Orac. 429 8; and for unity or the monad as ἀρχὴ
ἀριθμοῦ see De Defectu Orac. 415 © (ἔκ τε τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῶν
πρώτων . . .) and 1017 p supra with note c there (cf. also
Bers ates, Arithmetica Introductio τ, viii, 2-3 =p. 14, 18-19
{Hoche]; Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 1, 4 [De Falco] ;
and Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis 1, vi, 7), but for one
treated as the first odd number see 1027 F supra with note
d there.

7 For triangular numbers see the references in note Ο on
n(n +1)
2
satisfied for 36 by n=8, and none of the preceding triangular
numbers (with the exception of 1) is a square (cf. Theon

Smyrnaeus, p. 33, 16-17 [Hiller]).

Plat. Quaest. 1003 r supra. ‘The expression is

279

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1018) πολλαπλασιάσαντος, συνθέσει δὲ τριῶν κύβων, τὸ
γὰρ ἕν καὶ τὰ ὀκτὼ καὶ τὰ εἰκοσιεπτὰ συντεθέντα

α κ β

παραμέση

δ

a τέσσα )ρὼν

=
«Ὁ

ὃ v r

ποιεῖ TOV προγεγραμμένον ἀριθμόν. ἔτι δὲ ἕτερο-
D μήκης ἀπὸ δυεῖν πλευρῶν, τῶν μὲν δώδεκα τρὶς

6 For 1 as a cubic number see Quaest. Conviv. 744. B with
Jamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 77, 9 (De Faico), and cf.
Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio τι, xv, 3 and xx, 5

280

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1018

four, and of the addition of three cubic numbers, for
one® and eight and twenty-seven added together

a K B

6 9

Hypaté Paramesé

δ v Y

produce the aforesaid number. Moreover, it is an
oblong number from two sides, from twelve multi-

(pp. 106, 6-7 and 119, 12-15 [Hoche]); Plutarch himself,
however, calls eight the first cubic number (1017 pb supra,
1020 pv infra, and Quaest. Conviv. 738 F), for which ef.
Jamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 72, 2 (De Falco): πρῶτον
ἐνεργείᾳ κύβον.

281

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

, 1 A ee re. 7, a δι τὸν
(1018) γιγνομένων' τῶν δ᾽ ἐννέα τετράκις. ἂν οὖν ἐκτε-
ἴω € ~ / / “-
θῶσιν" αἱ τῶν σχημάτων πλευραΐ, τοῦ τετραγώνου
\ a \ }
τὰ ς΄ καὶ τοῦ τριγώνου τὰ ὀκτὼ καὶ παραλληλο-
/ los \ fee: x 2 / A \ e
γράμμων τοῦ μὲν ἑτέρου τὰ ἐννέα τοῦ δὲ ἑτέρου
τὰ ιβ΄, τοὺς" τῶν συμφωνιῶν ποιήσουσι λόγους.
v Ἃ \ / \ cA dat δι / \ /
ἔσται γὰρ τὰ δώδεκα πρὸς μὲν τὰ ἐννέα διὰ τεσσά-
ρων ὡς νήτη πρὸς παραμέσην, πρὸς δὲ τὰ ὀκτὼ
διὰ πέντε ὡς νήτη πρὸς μέσην, πρὸς δὲ τὰ ς΄ διὰ
- ῃ , \ pg ε \ “4 ,
πασῶν ὡς νήτη πρὸς ὑπάτην. ὁ de ais” κύβος
ἐστὶν ἀπὸ ἑξάδος ἴσος τῇ ἑαυτοῦ περιμέτρῳ.
14. Τοιαύτας δὲ δυνάμεις τῶν ἐκκειμένων ἀρι-
“ > / 3 “a / , “A
θμῶν ἐχόντων ἴδιον τῷ τελευταίῳ συμβέβηκε, τῷ
f A “A A ? ~ 7 δ» εὶ
E xl’, τὸ τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ συντιθεμένοις" ἴσον εἶναι
πᾶσιν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ περιοδικὸς σελήνης. καὶ τῶν

ty... vac. 3... ὁμένων -F.

2 ἐντεθῶσιν -r. The figure supra set into text -E; in
margin -B; in margin (right angled parallelogram divided
into four equal parts with letters and numbers only) -e, u,
Escor. 72; figure omitted by f, m, r.

3 Between ιβ΄ and τοὺς f, m, r, and Aldine repeat καὶ τοῦ
τριγώνου . . . παραλληλογράμμων supra; and Escor. 72 repeats
(but brackets) καὶ τοῦ τριγώνου . . . τοῦ μὲν €.

4 f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine (cf. 6 μὲν ς΄ and ὁ δὲ ds’ in
1018 c supra); ὁ δὲ τῶν ais’ -E, B, e, u (τῶν of’).

ν
5 Maurommates ; συντιθέμενον -MSS. (συντιθέμενος -Τ).

¢ Number of this kind is προμήκης and only that of the
type πίη 1) is ἑτερομήκης according to Nicomachus,
Arithmetica Introductio τι, xvii, 1 and xviii, 2 (pp. 108, 8-
109, 11 and 113, 6-18 [Hoche]) and Theon Smyrnaeus,
pp. 30, 8-31, 8 (Hiller). Theon himself at least once, how-
ever, uses ἑτερομήκης for any oblong number (p. 36, 13-20
[Hiller]), just as Plutarch does here (see also De Iside 367 F,

282

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1018

plied by three and from nine multiplied by four.4
Now, if the sides of the figures be set out, six the
side of the square and eight of the triangular number
and of the parallelogrammic numbers? nine the side
of one and twelve of the other, they will produce the
ratios of the consonances, for twelve to nine will be a
fourth as nété to paramesé, to eight a fifth as nété
to mesé, and to six an octave as nété to hypaté.¢
The number 216 is a cube from six equal to its own
perimeter.

14. Of the numbers set out,’ which possess such
properties, the last, twenty-seven, has the peculiar
characteristic of being equal to the sum of all those
before 10.959 It is also the periodic number of the

where eighteen [7.e. 6 x3 or 9 x2] is called ἑτερομήκης), as
Euclid is supposed by Iamblichus to have done (Jn Nico-
machi <Arithmeticam Introductionem, pp. 74, 23-75, 4
{Pistelli]), and as Aristotle apparently did (Anal. Post.
73 a 40-b 1 with Philoponus, Anal. Post., Ὁ. 62, 15-20).
Plato in Theaetetus 148 a 1-8 2 used both προμήκης and
ἑτερομήκης indifferently of all oblong numbers.

> i.e. the oblongs, 12 x3 and 9x4, supra. Cf. Theon
Smyrnaeus (pp. 27, 23-28, 2 [Hiller]), who uses the term
for those numbers that in his sense are προμήκεις but not
ἑτερομήκεις, 1.6. those of the type n(n +m) where m is not
less than 2.

¢ Cf. [Plutarch], De Musica 1138 e—1139 B and 1140 a;
Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 6 and Excerpta 7 (Musici
Scriptores Graeci, pp. 247, 7-26 and 248, 18-26; p. 279,
8-15 [Jan]). For the meaning of nété and hypaté see note
6 on Plat. Quaest. 1007 © supra; the paramesé is one tone
higher in pitch than the mesé (cf. Nicomachus in Musici
Scriptores Graeci, Ὁ. 248, 21-22 [Jan}).

4 2,9, 216=63=the sum of the six bounding planes, each
of which is 6?.

¢ 2,6. τῶν ὑπὸ ἸΠλάτωνος ἐκκειμένων ἀριθμῶν (1017 D supra).

f See page 251, note a supra.

9 Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, Ὁ. 96, 5-8 (Hiller).

283

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

> ] A / ς \ ἃ
(1018) ἐμμελῶν διαστημάτων οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ τὸν τόνον
3 A ~ U \
ἐν τούτῳ TH ἀριθμῷ τάττουσι" διὸ Kal’ τὰ τριακαί-
a A > 7 \ / “A
dexa λεῖμμα καλοῦσιν, ἀπολείπει γὰρ μονάδι τοῦ
ες; σ΄ et) αἱ 3 \ \ α x
ἡμίσεος. ὅτι δὲ OTOL Kal τοὺς τῶν συμφωνιῶν
λόγους περιέχουσι padiov καταμαθεῖν. καὶ γὰρ
διπλάσιος λόγος ἐστὶν 6 τῶν δύο πρὸς τὸ ἕν ἐν ᾧ
A A ~ \ ς / e \ \ 7 ~
τὸ διὰ πασῶν, καὶ ἡμιόλιος ὃ πρὸς Ta δύο τῶν
τριῶν ἐν ᾧ τὸ διὰ πέντε, καὶ ἐπίτριτος ὁ πρὸ ὰ
τρία τῶν τεσσάρων ἐν ᾧ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων, καὶ
, e A 4 / ~ > / > e \ x
τριπλάσιος ὁ πρὸς τὰ τρία τῶν ἐννέα ἐν @ TO διὰ
F πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε, καὶ τετραπλάσιος ὁ πρὸς τὰ
, mai Ws 9/9 (Oe a ees \ A_4.” \ \
δύο τῶν ὀκτὼ ἐν @ TO δὶς" διὰ πασῶν"" ἔνεστι δὲ καὶ

1 καὶ -omitted by r.
2 οὗτοι -omitted by r.
8 δὶς -omitted by ἃ.
* δὶς διὰ πασῶν καὶ διὰ πέντε -Ὑ.

* Cf. Aulus Gellius, 1, xx, 6; Favonius Eulogius, De
Somnio Scipionis, Ὁ. 12, 2-4 (Holder); and Chalcidius,
_ Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 180, 20-21 (Wrobel)=p. 160, 9-10
(Waszink). The period of 274 days, also mentioned by
Chalcidius (p. 137, 17-20 [Wrobel] = p. 117, 11-13 [Waszink]),
is the approximate tropical month: cf. Geminus, Elementa
Astronomiae i, 30 (p. 12, 24-27 [Manitius]); Pliny, ΝΗ. ii,
44; Theon Smyrnaeus, Ὁ. 136, 1-3 (Hiller); Macrobius,
In Somnium Scipionis 1, vi, 50.
> See τὰ μελῳδούμενα . . . διαστήματα in 1019 a infra with
note f there; and for τὰ ἐμμελῆ διαστήματα cf. Dionysius
Musicus in Porphyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica, Ὁ. 37, 19-20
(Diiring) and Gaudentius, Harmonica Introductio 3 (Musici
Scriptores Graect, p. 330, 11-16 [Jan]).
¢ Cf. Boethius, De Institutione Musica 11, v (pp. 276,
15-277, 1 and p. 277, 16-18 [Friedlein])=Philolaus, frag.
A 26 (I, p. 405, 8-15 and 27-28 [D.-K.]). In fact, if the fifth,

284.

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1018

moon; and of the melodious intervals” the tone is
assigned to this number by the Pythagoreans,° which
is also why they call thirteen “ leimma,’’? for it falls
short of the half by a unit.¢ And it is easy to see
that these numbers also comprise the ratios of the
consonances.f For the ratio of two to one is duple,
in which the octave consists, and that of three to two
is sesquialteran, in which the fifth consists, and that
of four to three is sesquitertian, in which the fourth
consists, and that of nine to three is triple, in which
consists the octave plus a fifth, and that of eight to
two is quadruple, in which the double octave consists ;

fourth, and tone be raised to their least common denominator,
the numerator of the tone is 27.

@ See 1017 F supra (page 273, notec). The “ leimma ”’ is
the ratio 256-243 but was then identified with the difference
between these two numbers, as is stated in 1022 a infra
(τὸ μεταξὺ τῶν opy’ Kai τῶν avs’. . .) and Boethius, De
Institutione Musica 111, v (p. 277, 5-7 [Friedlein]) — Philolaus,
frag. A 26 (I, p. 405, 19-20 [D. -K.]), a mistake of which
Theon Smyrnaeus was aware despite his tendency to fall into
it himself (p. 67, 13-16 and p. 69, 3-14 [Hiller]).

¢ The same explanation of the term “ leimma,’’ though
without the additional mistake of μονάδι (for not thirteen but
that of which it is a half falls short of twenty-seven by a unit),
is given in 1020 F infra (. . . ὅτι τοῦ ἡμίσεος ἀπολείπει) and
by Chalcidius (Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 112, 11-12 [Wrobel] =
p. 94, 10-11 [Waszink]) and Gaudentius (Harmonica Intro-
ductio 14= Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 343, 6-10 [Jan]) ;
but the correct explanation, i.e. that it means “the re-
mainder’ after two tones have been measured off from a
fourth (cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 10-13
and pp. 182, 30-183, 2 [Diehl]; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 70,
3-6 [Hiller]), is given in 1022 a infra (... περίεστι... διὸ Kai
λεῖμμα ὠνόμαζον).

7 Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 95, 14-16 (Hiller); for what
follows see De E 389 p and cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum
ii, p. 168, 2-8 (Diehl) and Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis
11, i, 15-20.

285

(1018)

1019

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

ἐπόγδοος ὁ δ᾽ τῶν ἐννέα πρὸς τὰ ὀκτὼ" ἐν ᾧ τὸ το-
νιαῖον. ἂν τοίνυν ἡ μονὰς ἐπίκοινος οὖσα καὶ τοῖς
ἀρτίοις συναριθμῆται" καὶ τοῖς περιττοῖς, ὁ μὲν
ἅπας ἀριθμὸς τὸ τῆς δεκάδος παρέχεται πλῆθος
(ot γὰρ ἀπὸ μονάδος μέχρι τῶν δέκα συντιθέμενοι
{πέντε καὶ πεντήκοντα ποιοῦσι) τούτου δὲ ὁ μὲν
ἄρτιος)" πεντεκαίδεκα, τρίγωνον ἀπὸ πεντάδος, ὁ
δὲ περιττὸς τὸν τεσσαράκοντα κατὰ σύνθεσιν μὲν
ἐκ τῶν δεκατριῶν καὶ τῶν KC’ γεννώμενον, οἷς τὰ
μελῳδούμενα μετροῦσιν εὐσήμως" οἱ μαθηματικοὶ
διαστήματα τὸ μὲν δίεσιν τὸ δὲ τόνον καλοῦντες,
κατὰ τὸν πολλαπλασιασμὸν δὲ τῇ τῆς τετρακτύος
δυνάμει γιγνόμενον, τῶν γὰρ πρώτων τεσσάρων
καθ᾽ αὑτὸν ἑκάστου τετράκις λαμβανομένου γίγνε-
ὁ -E, B; omitted by all other mss. and Aldine.

2 τῶν ἐννέα πρὸς τὰ ὀκτὼ -Bernardakis (πρὸς τὰ ὀκτὼ τῶν
ἐννέα -Maurommates) ; τῶν ὀκτὼ (η΄ -B, f, m, r) πρὸς τὰ θ'
(ἐννέα - 1) -Μ88.

9 5 ΒΘ Uirst ¢ Over erasure), f, m; συναριθμεῖται -e, Al-
aa συναρθμεῖται -¥ 3; συναρίμειται -U; συναριθεῖται -Escor.

ou .> added by H. C. after Bernardakis (τὰ πέντε καὶ
Reeves ποιοῦσι: τούτων δὲ πάλιν ὁ μὲν ἄρτιος τὰ) and
similar supplements by Wyttenbach and B. Miiller (1873) ;
συντιθέμενοι.. .. Vac. 50 -E; vac. 48-B... πεντεκαίδεκα -Ἐ,,
Bs avr Weuebort πεντεκαΐδεκα -€, ἃ, Escor. 79 : : συντιθέμενοι
te” Deira lacuna) -f, m, r, Aldine.
> εὐρύθμως -B.
¢ See De 588. a (... ἡ, μὲν «μονὰς Cp ΟΣ ἐπίκοινός
ἐστι τῇ δυνάμει) and 1027 © supra (page 269, note a); cf.
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 95, 8-9 (Hiller) and Chaleidius,
Platonis Timaeus, p. 104, 16-25 (Wrobel)= pp. 87, 23-88,
(Waszink).
ὃ With what follows, i.e. 1+2+3...+10=55=(14+2+ 4
+8 [=15])+(1+3+9+27 [=40]) cf. Anatolius in lam-
blichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 86, 10-18 (De Falco).

286

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1018-1019

and among them also that of nine to eight is sesqui-
octavan, in which the interval of the tone consists. If,
then, the unit, which is common to the even numbers
and the odd,* be counted along with both, the number
taken all together ὃ gives the sum of the decad (for
the numbers from one to ten added together (make
fifty-five), and of this the even number gives) fifteen,
a triangular number from five,° while the odd number
gives forty, by addition produced from thirteen and
twenty-seven, numbers which the mathematicians,?
calling the former “ diesis ”’ and the latter “ tone,’
make distinct measures of the melodic intervals,f but
by multiplication arising in virtue of the tetractys,’
for, when each of the first four by itself is multiplied

feast)
ae

δλξιφ,),. 15— Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 38, 11-114

(Hiller) and see note ¢ on Plat. Quaest. 1003 F supra.

4 4.€. of Πυθαγορικοί of 1018 π supra. See 1020 E-F infra,
where οἱ μὲν ἁρμονικοὶ. . . of δὲ Πυθαγορικοὶ -Ξ τοῖς μὲν ἅρμονι-
κοῖς... τοῖς δὲ μαθηματικοῖς, and 1021 p infra (. .. ὀρθῶς ὑπὸ
τῶν μαθηματικῶν λεῖμμα προσηγόρευται).

4 See 1018 © supra with notes cand ὦ there. As to the use
of ‘‘ diesis”’ here for what is there called “ leimma”’ cf.
Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 55, 13-15 and 56, 18—57, 1 (Hiller) ;
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 112, 9-10 (Wrobel)=p. 9-4,
8-9 (Waszink) ; Macrobius, Jn Somnium Scipionis uy, i, 23 :
Boethius, De Institutione Musica 11, xxviii (p. 260, 21-25
[Friedlein]) and m1, v (p. 277, 1-5 [Friedlein]=Philolaus,
frag. A 26 [i, p. 405, 15-19, D.-K.]) with Philolaus, frag. B 6
(i, p. 410, 2-8 [D.-K.]).

. τῶν ἐμμελῶν διαστημάτων... τὸν τόνον... (1018 E
supra) and διάστημα ἐν pedwdia . . . τῶν δὲ διαστημάτων. ..
τόνος (1020 © infra). In De E 389 Ἐ-Ὲ and De Defectu Orac.
430 a Plutarch counts five μελῳδούμενα διαστήματα. distin-
guishing δίεσις as the quarter-tone from ἡμιτόνιον (cf. Theon
Smyrnaeus, p. 55, 11-13 [Hiller]}).

9 Not the Platonic “ tetractys ’’ but, as is clear from what
follows, the quaternary of the first four numbers.

287

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

’ \ , A A
(1019) tor δ΄ καὶ η΄ καὶ ιβ΄ καὶ ις΄. ταῦτα Tov’ μ' συν-
τίθησι περιέχοντα τοὺς τῶν συμφωνιῶν λόγους" τὰ
μὲν γὰρ us’ ἐπίτριτα τῶν δεκαδύο ἐστὶν τῶν δ᾽
ὀκτὼ διπλάσια, τῶν δὲ τεσσάρων" τετραπλάσια, τὰ
Β {δὲν ιβ΄’ τῶν ὀκτὼ ἡμιόλια τῶν δὲ τεσσάρων τρι-
πλάσια. οὗτοι δὲ οἱ λόγοι τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καὶ τὸ
διὰ πέντε καὶ τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ τὸ δὶς διὰ πασῶν
περιέχουσιν. ἴσος γε μήν ἐστιν ὁ τῶν τεσσαρά-
κοντα δυσὶ" τετραγώνοις" καὶ δυσὶ κύβοις ὁμοῦ
λαμβανομένοις" τὸ γὰρ ἕν καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα καὶ τὰ
ὀκτὼ καὶ τὰ κζ' κύβοι καὶ τετράγωνοι {(μ'" yiy-
νονται συντεθέντες .ἷ ὥστε πολὺ τῆς ΠΙυθαγορικῆς
τὴν Τἰλατωνικὴν τετρακτὺν ποικιλωτέραν εἶναι τῇ
διαθέσει καὶ τελειοτέραν.
3 A aA 3 / / ~ e
15. ᾿Αλλὰ ταῖς εἰσαγομέναις μεσότησι τῶν ὑπο-
κειμένων ἀριθμῶν χώρας οὐ διδόντων, ἐδέησε μεί-
ζονας ὅρους λαβεῖν ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς λόγοις. καὶ
Ο λεκτέον τίνες εἰσὶν οὗτοι. πρότερον δὲ περὶ τῶν
μεσοτήτων' ὧν τὴν μὲν ἴσῳ κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑπερ.
1 ταῦτα δὲ τὸν -E, Β. 5. τῶν δ΄ -Ε, B,
8. «δὲ» -added by Β. Miiller (1873).
4 δυσὶ -Bernardakis; δυοῖν -E, B, f, τὴ, r; δυεῖν -e, u,
Escor. 72.
5 τετραγώνοιν -f (-γωνοῖν). m}, r.
6 <¢u’> -added by Maurommates.
7 Es; συντιθέντες -all other mss., Aldine.

* The octave plus a fifth (12-4), though expressly included
in 1018 ἘΠ supra as the ratio of nine to three, the triple
ratio, is (inadvertently 3) omitted here, as it is by the mss. of
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 101, 4-5 (Wrobel)=p. 84,
22-23 (Waszink).

ὃ Since eight and twenty-seven are cubic numbers, one
and four must be the two square numbers (cf. De Defectu
Orac. 429 E[. . . πρώτων δυεῖν τετραγώνων . . . τῆς TE μονάδος

288

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1019

by four, the result is four and eight and twelve and
sixteen. These make up the number forty while
comprising the ratios of the consonances, for sixteen
is four thirds of twelve and twice as much as eight
and four times as much as four, (and) twelve is half
again as much as eight and three times as much as
four ; and these ratios comprise the fourth and the
fifth and the octave and the double octave.* Then,
as to the number forty, it is equal to two square and
two cubic numbers taken together, for one and four
and eight and twenty-seven are cubic and square
numbers? amounting to <forty) when they have been
added together. Consequently the Platonic tetractys
is much more intricate and consummate in organisa-
tion than is the Pythagorean.°¢

15. Since, however, the numbers postulated do not
provide room for the means that are being inserted,
it was necessary to take higher terms in the same
ratios.¢ So one must say what these are. Before
that, however, about the means”: of these the one

καὶ τῆς τετράδος) and De E 391 a), though one has just been
treated as a cubic number (see 1018 c supra with note a
on page 281).

¢ See 1017 v, note ὃ supra.

4 The ‘‘ numbers postulated’ are τῶν ὑπὸ Πλάτωνος ἐκκει-
μένων ἀριθμῶν (1017 pv supra). See 1020 a infra, where
after the digression on the means the substance of the
present sentence is rephrased more clearly ; and cf. Chal-
cidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 106, 24-107, 2 (Wrobel) =
p. 89, 19-21 (Waszink).

¢ With what follows cf. Nicomachus, Harmonices Man.
8 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 250, 12-251, 3 and p. 251,
10-13 [Jan]); Philo Jud., De Opificio Mundi 108-110 (i,
pp. 38, 19-39, 11 [Cohn]); Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus,
p. 107, 2-20 (Wrobel)=pp. 89, 22-90, 12 (Waszink) ;
Martianus Capella, vii, 737.

289

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1019) ἔχουσαν ἴσῳ δὲ ὑπερεχομένην ἀριθμητικὴν οἱ νῦν
καλοῦσι τὴν δὲ ταὐτῷ μέρει τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῶν
ὑπερέχουσαν καὶ ὑπερεχομένην ὑπεναντίαν. ὅροι
δ᾽ εἰσὶ τῆς μὲν ἀριθμητικῆς ς΄ καὶ θ' καὶ ιβ’, τὰ
γὰρ ἐννέα τῷ ἴσῳ κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἕξ ὑπερέχει
καὶ τῶν 1p’ λείπεται: τῆς δὲ ὑπεναντίας ς΄ η΄ up’,
τὰ γὰρ ὀκτὼ δυσὶ μὲν τῶν s’ ὑπερέχει τέσσαρσι
δὲ τῶν ιβ΄ λείπεται, ὧν τὰ μὲν δύο τῶν ἐξ τὰ δὲ
τέσσαρα τῶν δώδεκα τριτημόριόν ἐστι. συμβέβη-
κεν οὖν ἐν μὲν τῇ ἀριθμητικῇ ταὐτῷ" μέρει TO*

D μέσον" ὑπερέχεσθαι καὶ ὑπερέχειν ἐν δὲ τῇ ὑπεν-
αντίᾳ ταὐτῷ μέρει τῶν ἄκρων τοῦ μὲν ἀποδεῖν
\6 Ὁ... / 9 A 4 \ A / . = 7
τὸ" δὲ ὑπερβάλλειν, ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ τὰ τρία τοῦ μέσου
’ $ ese , 7.5 ~ \ \ , \ \ , aA
τρίτον ἐστὶ μέρος ἐνταῦθα δὲ τὰ δ΄ καὶ τὰ β΄ τῶν
ἄκρων ἑκάτερον ἑκατέρου: ὅθεν ὑπεναντία κέκλη-
1 F, B; dvo -all other mss., Aldine. 2 3.

8 τῷ ἄκρω “U3 τῷ αὐτῷ -all other mss.
, μέρει τῶν ἄκρων τὸ -B, Β.
5 μέσον -correction in margin -f!, m?!, r!, Leonicus ; ἴσον
(or ἶσον) -Mss.

6 +6 -Turnebus; τοῦ -r; τὸν -all other mss., Aldine.

7 μέσον (with final ν remade to s) -u.

α ἢ. exceeds one extreme and falls short of the other.
This is clear in Timaeus 36 a 4-5 (quoted in 1027 B-c supra)
because this clause is preceded by that which defines the
harmonic mean and which contains τῶν ἄκρων.

> Though Plutarch here says that ὑπεναντία is the term
used for the harmonic mean by his contemporaries and so
uses it in paraphrasing Eudorus (1019 & infra), lamblichus
says (In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem, pp. 100,
29-101, Sand p. 113, 16-22 [Pistelli]) that what was originally
called ὑπεναντία was renamed ἁρμονική by the circle of
Archytas and Hippasus (ef. Archytas, frag. B 2 [D.-K.]=
Porphyry, Jn Ptolemaei Harmonica, Ὁ. 93, 7 and 13-17
(Diiring]) and that afterwards the name ὑπεναντία was
applied to a new, fourth mean, thought to be contrary to the

290

i

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1019

that exceeds and falls short ὁ by amounts numerically
equal men today call arithmetical, and the one that
exceeds and falls short of the extremes by the same
fraction of them they call subcontrary.o Of the
arithmetical six and nine and twelve are terms, for
nine exceeds six and falls short of twelve by numerical
equality ; and of the subcontrary six, eight, twelve
are terms, for eight exceeds six by two and falls
short of twelve by four, and of these two is a third
of six and four a third of twelve. So it is characteristic
in the arithmetical for the middle to exceed and fall
short by the same fraction ὁ and in the subcontrary
for it to be inferior to one of the extremes and to
surpass the other by the identical fraction of them,
for in the former case three is a third of the middle
and in the latter four and two are thirds, one of one
extreme and the other of the other, for which reason
it has been called subcontrary.¢ And to this they
harmonic (cf. Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio τι,
xxvili, 3=p. 141, 4-16 [Hoche] and Theon Smyrnaeus,
p. 115, 9-11 [Hiller]).

ὁ 6. by the same fraction of itself. Cf. Nicomachus,
Arithmetica Introductio τι, xxv, 3 (p. 132, 18-20 [Hoche]
and for the whole of Plutarch’s sentence ibid., pp. 132,
18-133, 2); Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Intro-
ductionem, p. 114, 5-8 (Pistelli).

4 Cf. Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Intro-
ductionem, Ὁ. 110, 17-23 with pp. 100, 25-101, 1 (Pistelli)
and Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio 11, xxv, 3 (p. 132,
21-22 [Hoche]). The contrariety is identified with another
characteristic by Iamblichus, op. cit., p. 111, 18-26 and
Boethius, De Institutione Arithmetica τι, xlvii (p. 152, 27-31
[Friedlein|) ; ef. Nicomachus, op. cit. τι, xxiii, 6 and xxv,
2 (pp. 126, 1-6 and 132, 11-15 [Hoche]). E. de Strycker
(Antiquité Classique, xxi [1952], p. 531, n. 1) defended the
latter explanation; Burkert (Weisheit und Wissenschaft,
p. 418, n. 98) proposed still another.

20)

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1019; ται. ταύτην dé’ a nV ὀνομαζ Ἵ i
i ται. nv ρμονικὴν ὀνομάζουσιν ὅτι τοῖς
¢ \ wn , 4 ζω
ὅροις τὰ πρῶτα σύμφωνα παρέχεται, τῷ μὲν με-

ὅροι τῆς ἀριθμητικῆς ?

θ ιβ
ἡ λεῖψις

τοῦ ἐννέα
τρία

t
ἢ ὑπεροχὴ
τοῦ ἐννέα
τρίᾳ

« » /
ὁ ἐννέα
σις # 3 > ‘
τῷ tow κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν.
~ ap’ ie ’ -
τῶν ἕξ ὑπερέχει καὶ τῶν

’
δώδεκα λείπεται

΄- ε n ΄- ¢ -
ὅροι τῆς ὑπεναντίας ἢ τῆς αρμονικὴς

η ιβ

~ > \
ἡ ὑπεροχὴ τῶν ὀκτὼ
vo
,
τριτημόριον

ε μ᾿ 1 -
ἡ ἔνδεια αὐτῶν
/
τέσσαρα

τριτημόριον

€ > \

ὁ ὀκτὼ

τῷ αὐτῷ μέρε:

τὸν €€ ὑπερβάλλει καὶ
“A ΄ ,ὔ

τοῦ δώδεκα λείπεται

1 τὴν αὐτὴν δὲ -Β. Miiller (1873) ; ταύτην δὲ «καὶ» -Hubert.
2 The two figures as here -E (lower margin) ;
ο θ Τ n
δ᾽ δὰ and ς β ὃ ιβ -e, Escor. 72 (both
in side margin); figures omitted by all other mss.
202

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1019

give the name harmonic because by its terms it
exhibits the primary concords,* by the greatest in

Terms of the arithmetical
9

Three,
the excess of nine

Three;
the deficiency of nine

Nine exceeds six and falls short of
twelve by numerical equality

Terms of the subcontrary or harmonic

8

Two, Four,
the excess of eight, the inferiority of it,
a third a third

Eight surpasses six and fails short of
twelve by the same fraction

¢ Cf. lamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introduc-
tionem, p. 100, 23-25 (Pistelli) and Nicomachus, Arithmetica
Introductio τι, xxvi, 2 (pp. 135, 10-136, 11 [Hoche]); for
τὰ πρῶτα σύμφωνα See page 275, note ἃ supra.

293

(1019)

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

/ \ \ δὰ 7 \ \ “- a \
γίστῳ πρὸς τὸν ἐλάχιστον τὸ διὰ πασῶν τῷ δὲ
μεγίστῳ" “πρὸς τὸν" μέσον τὸ διὰ πέντε τῷ δὲ
μέσῳ πρὸς TOV" ἐλάχιστον τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων, OTL
τοῦ μεγίστου τῶν ὅρων κατὰ νήτην τιθεμένου τοῦ
δ᾽ ἐλαχίστου καθ᾽ ὑπάτην ὁ μέσος γίγνεται o°
κατὰ μέσην πρὸς μὲν" τὸν μέγιστον τὸ" διὰ πέντε
ποιοῦσαν πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἐλάχιστον" TO” διὰ τεσσάρων"
ὥστε γίγνεσθαι τὰ ὀκτὼ κατὰ τὴν μέσην τὰ δὲ
δώδεκα κατὰ νήτην"" τὰ δὲ ἕξ καθ᾽ ὑπάτην.

16. Τὸν δὲ τρόπον ᾧ λαμβάνουσι τὰς εἰρημένας
μεσότητας ἁπλῶς καὶ σαφῶς Εὔδωρος ἀποδείκ-
νυσι. σκόπει δὲ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῆς ἀριθμητικῆς.
ἂν γὰρ ἐκθεὶς τοὺς ἄκρους λάβῃς ἑκατέρου" τὸ
ἥμισυ μέρος καὶ συνθῆς, ὃ συντεθεὶς ἔσται μέσος ἔν
τε τοῖς" διπλασίοις καὶ τοῖς τριπλασίοις ὁμοίως.
ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ὑπεναντίας, ἐν μὲν τοῖς διπλασίοις ἂν
τοὺς ἄκρους ἐκθεὶς᾽" τοῦ μὲν ἐλάττονος τὸ τρίτον
τοῦ δὲ μείζονος τὸ ἥμισυ λάβῃς, ὁ συντεθεὶς"
γίγνεται μέσος" ἐν δὲ τοῖς τριπλασίοις" ἀνάπαλιν
τοῦ μὲν ἐλάττονος ἥμισυ δεῖ λαβεῖν τοῦ δὲ μεί-
ζονος τρίτον, ὁ γὰρ συντεθεὶς οὕτω γίγνεται μέσος.
ἔστω γὰρ ἐν τριπλασίῳ λόγῳ τὰ ς΄ ἐλάχιστος ὅρος

1 πρὸς τὸν ἐλάχιστον τὸ διὰ πασῶν τῷ δὲ μεγίστῳ -omitted
by f.

2 τὸν -E (ν superscript -E!), B; τὸ -all other mss., Aldine.

3

τὸ -Y.
* ὅθεν -B. Miller (1873); ἔτι -Hubert (who also suggests
wee ὅτι. .. τὰ δὲ ἐξ καθ᾽ ὑπάτην AS a Marginal note).

ὁ -deleted by Β. Miiller (1873).
ὃ μὲν -omitted by Zs
Η πρὸς μὲν τὴν νήτην -Β. Miiller (1873). 8 τὸν -Τίο, Aldine.
Ἂ τὸ ἐλάχιστον -Ὑ : τὴν ὑπάτην -Β. Miller (1873).
τ πὸ , Β, τ: omitted by all other uss. and Aldine.

κατὰ THY νήτην -f, mM, ©. 12 ἑκάτερον -F.

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1019

relation to the least the octave and by the greatest in
relation to the middle term the fifth and by the middle
term in relation to the least the fourth, because, the
greatest of the terms being placed at nété and the
least at hypaté, the middle term turns out to be that
at mesé, mesé in relation to the greatest making the
fifth and in relation to the least the fourth, so that
eight turns out to be at the mesé and twelve at nété
and six at hypaté.

16. The way the aforesaid means are found is set
forth simply and clearly by Eudorus.¢ Of the two
consider first the arithmetical. If you set out the
extreme terms and take the half of each and add the
two halves together, the resulting sum will be the
middle term in the case of the double numbers and
of the triple alike.’ In the case of the subcontrary,°
however, if in the double numbers you set out the
extreme terms and take the third of the lesser and
the half of the greater, their sum turns out to be the
middle term ; but in the triple numbers contrariwise
you must take half of the lesser and a third of the
greater, for the sum of this addition turns out to be
the middle term. For let six be least term and

* See note 6 on 1013 B supra.

> Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 738 Ὁ (. . . συντεθέντα δ᾽
ἀλλήλοις διπλασιάζει τὸν μέσον): Nicomachus, Arithmetica
Introductio 11, xxvii, 7 (pp. 139, 23-140, 2 [Hoche]) ; Theon
Smyrnaeus, p. 113, 29-25 and p. 116, 11-13 and 20-2.
(Hiller).

¢ See note 6 on 1019 c supra.

13 τοῖς -omitted by ἢ, m, r.
14 ἂν θεὶς -τ.

18 συντιθεὶς -Υ΄.

16 ἐν δὲ τοῖς τριπλασίοις . . . οὕτω γίγνεται μέσος -omitted

by u.

295

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

Ἷ A \ ’ ’ \ > “.
(1019) τὰ δὲ ιη΄ μέγιστος" ἂν οὖν τῶν ς΄ τὸ ἥμισυ λαβὼν
A “ \ ~ > \ 4 A
τὰ τρία Kal τῶν ὀκτὼ καὶ δέκα TO τρίτον τὰ ς΄
An A. ‘ A’? 2 A , A » ε
συνθῇς," ἕξεις τὰ θ΄" ταὐτῷ μέρει τῶν ἄκρων ὑπερ-
/ \
EXOVTA καὶ ὑπερεχόμενα. οὕτως μὲν al μεσότητες
1020 λαμβάνονται. δεῖ δ᾽ αὐτὰς ἐκεῖ παρεντάξαι" καὶ
9 ~ A
ἀναπληρῶσαι τὰ διπλάσια καὶ τριπλάσια διαστή-
~ > “~
ματα. τῶν δ᾽ ἐκκειμένων ἀριθμῶν ot μὲν οὐδὲ
ὅλως μεταξὺ χώραν ἔχουσιν οἱ δ᾽ οὐχ ἱκανήν"
» Ss ~ ~
αὔξοντες οὖν αὐτούς, τῶν αὐτῶν λόγων διαμενόν-
των, ὑποδοχὰς ποιοῦσιν ἀρκούσας ταῖς εἰρημέναις
μεσότησι. καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἐλάχιστον ἀντὶ" τοῦ
ἑνὸς τὰ ἕξ θέντες, ἐπεὶ πρῶτος ἥμισύ τε καὶ τρίτον
ἔχει μέρος, ἅπαντας ἑξαπλασίους τοὺς ὑποτεταγ-
μένους ἐποίησαν, ὡς ὑπογέγραπται," δεχομένους
τὰς μεσότητας ἀμφοτέρας καὶ τοῖς διπλασίοις δια-
στήμασι καὶ τοῖς τριπλασίοις. εἰρηκότος δὲ τοῦ
1 E, B, εθοτσ. (¢ added over cancellation), ἃ ; συνθῆ -f, m,
ἔς Escor. 79.
2 τὰ 0’ -e, u, f, πὶ, r, Escor. 72, Aldine; τὸν ἐννέα -E;
θ΄ -Β.

e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine : ὑπερεχόμενον -E, B.
παρεντέξαι -€, ἃ, Escor. 72}.
αὐτοὺς -omitted by B! (added superscript -B?2).

f,m,r; ὄντι -all other mss., Aldine.

ἐποίησεν -E, B.

The figure (p. 298) -E (lower margin); the figure with
numbers but without words -e, u, f, m, Escor. 72 (all in side
margins) ;. figure omitted by B, r.

9. καὶ τοῖς τριπλασίοις -f, m (added in margin by m?), r;
omitted by all other mss.

\
TO

on aon ἢ wh

¢ The general method of finding the harmonic mean (m),

(c - α)

αἱ ἐν α
where of the extremes 61» α, is given as nie ee +a by Nico-

ς
206

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1019-1020

eighteen greatest in a triple ratio : then, if of six you
take the half, three, and of eighteen the third, six,
and add them together, you will have nine, which
exceeds and falls short of the extremes by the same
fraction of them.* This is the way the means are
found ; but one must insert them in that designated
position and fill up the double and triple intervals.”
Of the numbers set out,° however, some do not have
any room at all between them and others do not have
enough ; so by increasing them with the same ratios
preserved people produce sufficient accommodations
for the aforesaid means.? First, for one they sub-
stituted as the smallest number six, since it is the
first that has both a half and a third; and all those
ranged underneath, as drawn below, they made six
times as large with room to admit both the means to
the double intervals and the triple too.¢ Plato has
machus (Arithmetica Introductio τι, xxvii, T=p. 140, 8-13
[Hoche]), Theon Smyrnaeus (p. 119, 3-16 [Hiller]), and

Proclus (Jn Platonis Timaeum ii, Ὁ. 172, 11-18 and pp. 172,
21-173, 4 [Diehl]). None of them gives the simpler formula-

tion, m= ἐπ, although this is implicit in the statement that

the sum of the extremes multiplied by the mean equals twice
the product of the extremes, 7.e. m(a+c)=2ac, made both
by Nicomachus (op. cit. τι, xxv, 4=p. 133, 5-8 [Hoche]} and
Harmonices Man. 8= Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 251, 3-10
[Jan]) and by ‘Theon Smyrnaeus (pp. 114, 25-115, 4
[ Hiller]).

> Cf. Timaeus 35 c 2—36 a 5 quoted at 1027 B-c supra.

¢ See 1019 B swpra (chap. 15 init.) with note d there.

4 Cf. 1027 pv supra (chap. 30 init.): .. . ἀριθμοῖς . . . χώρας
ἔχουσι δεκτικὰς μεταξὺ τῶν εἰρημένων ἀναλογιῶν... ..

¢ Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 175, 22--ΤἸ76,
27 (Diehl); Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 51, 8-15 and
pp. 51, 25-52, 5 (De Falco); Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus,
pp. 106, 24-110, 2 (Wrobel)=pp. 89, 19-92, 5 (Waszink).

407

(1020)

B

C

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

, (ee , \ oj 9 ,
Πλάτωνος “ ἡμιολίων δὲ διαστάσεων καὶ ἐπιτρίτων
καὶ ἐπογδόων γενομένων ex’ τούτων τῶν δεσμῶν
ἐν ταῖς πρόσθεν διαστάσεσι, τῷ" τοῦ ἐπογδόου δια-
στήματι τὰ ἐπίτριτα πάντα συνεπληροῦτο λείπων"
αὐτῶν ἑκάστου" μόριον, τῆς τοῦ" μορίου ταύτης
διαστάσεως λειφθείσης" ἀριθμοῦ πρὸς ἀριθμὸν ἐ ἐχού-
σης τοὺς ὅρους σ΄ καὶ ν΄ καὶ σ΄ πρὸς γ΄" καὶ μ'"
καὶ σ΄," διὰ ταύτην τὴν λέξιν ἠναγκάζοντο πάλιν
τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἐπανάγειν καὶ μείζονας ποιεῖν. ἔδει

\ \ > Cond > ’ / 4 ~ \
μὲν yap ἐφεξῆς ἐπόγδοα γίγνεσθαι δύο: τῆς δὲ

e , wi? 3 / > ’ 9 [4 » ’
ἑξάδος οὔτ᾽ αὐτόθεν ἐπόγδοον ἐχούσης, εἴ τε τέμ-

>
YOLTO, κερματιζομένων εἰς μόρια τῶν μονάδων,

δυσθεωρήτου τῆς μαθήσεως ἐσομένης, αὐτὸ" τὸ
πρᾶγμα τὸν πολλαπλασιασμὸν᾽" ὑπηγόρευσεν, ὥσ-

1 K, B, f, τὰ, r; εἰς -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.

2 διαστάσαισι τὸ -U.

> f, m, Τὶ : συνεπλήρου τὸ λεῖπον -all other ass.

4 ἢ, τὴ, Υ : ἑκάστῳ -all other mss.

5 τῆς δὲ τοῦ -ἔ, m, r.

; ληφθείσης -E, B.

7 ἕξ καὶ πεντήκοντα καὶ διακόσια -E, B; ... διακοσίων -1027 σα
supra and Timaeus 36 B 4.

4 πρὸς τρία πρὸς τρία -ἘΠῚ (first two words cancelled).

9

πρὸς τρία μ-ὺ.

10 πρὸς τρία καὶ τεσσαράκοντα καὶ διακόσια -Ἐὶ, B.

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1020

\ 162

said,* however, “‘ since as a result of these links in
the previous intervals there came to be intervals of
three to two and of four to three and of nine to
eight, he filled in all the intervals of four to three
with the interval of nine to eight leaving a fraction
of each of them, this remaining interval of the
fraction having the terms of the numerical ratio 256
to 243’; and because of this passage they were
compelled again to raise the numbers and make them
larger. For next in succession there had to come two
sesquioctavans ὃ ; but, as six of itself does not have a
sesquioctavan and, if it should be divided with the
units broken up into fractions,“ understanding the
subject would be an obscure matter,? the situation
itself prescribed the multiplication, just as in har-

* Timaeus 36 a 6—B 5 quoted at 1027 c supra.

> Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 176, 27-177, 3
(Diehl) ; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 67, 16-21 (Hiller); Chal-
cidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 115, 6-116, 8 (Wrobel)=p. 97,
3-24 (Waszink).

ο Of. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 21 (Diehl) :

εν τοῖς ἄτμητον THY μονάδα φυλάττειν ἀεὶ βουλομένοις.

4 Cf. 1027 & supra: ... ἀμυδρὰν ποιεῖ τὴν μάθησιν... ..

11 αὐτῶ -u.

12 βγη, Γ: πολυπλασιασμὸν -all other mss.

299

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1020) περ ἐν ἁρμονικῇ μεταβολῇ τοῦ διαγράμματος. ὅλου
συνεπιτεινομένου τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν ἀριθμῶν. ὁ “μὲν
οὖν Εὔδωρος ἐπακολουθήσας Kpavropt πρῶτον
3) \ ,ὔ Δ ὔ a a pe | \ }
ἔλαβε τὸν τπὸ΄, ὃς γίγνεται τοῦ ἐξ ἐπὶ τὰ ξδ΄ πολ-
λαπλασιασθέντος" ἐπηγάγετο δ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὁ τῶν ξδ΄
3 θ τ. ΠΝ 4 ὃ δ A f'-3 “-" δὲ ς \ “
ἀριθμὸς᾿ ἐπόγδοον ἔχων τὸν οβ΄. τοῖς δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ
Πλάτωνος λεγομένοις συμφωνότερόν ἐστιν ὑπο-
θέσθαι τὸ ἥμισυ τούτου: τὸ yap® λεῖμμα τὸ τῶν
3 ’ Ὁ , ? 3 A Δ ς /
ἐπογδόων ἕξει λόγον ἐν ἀριθμοῖς ovs ὁ HAatwv
εἴρηκεν ς΄ καὶ v’ καὶ σ' πρὸς y’ καὶ μ' καὶ σ΄, τῶν

D 9) ’ ’ θ / nv“ ὃ A ξς ’ ὃ λ “i
p?p’ πρώτων τιθεμένων. av δὲ ὁ τούτου διπλά
σιος τεθῇ" πρῶτος, ἔσται τὸ λεῖμμα λόγον μὲν ἔχον

A 3 \ 3 \ \ A , Δ ” \ f
τὸν αὐτὸν ἀριθμὸν δὲ τὸν διπλάσιον, ὃν ἔχει τὰ φιβ
πρὸς υὑπο'"" γίγνεται γὰρ ἐπίτριτα τῶν μὲν pPB”

; anaes τι.
τὸν οβ΄ -Β ; τὸν on πρὸς τὸν of -Ἐ (τὸν on πρὸς Can-

ase 3 τὸν 7 καὶ ο (ὁ -f, m, r) πρὸς τὸν of -all other MSS.

3 τούτου, τὸ yap -f, m, 3 τούτου (τρίτου -B) yap τὸ -all
other mss.

* τὸ -Maurommates ; τὸν -Mss.

5 707 -r.

6 EK, B, e, u, Escor. 72 (with ὃ superscript over s); vod’
-f, ΠΣ ὃ vie -Aldine.

7 psp’ -u.

¢ Cf. Ptolemy, Harmonica, pp. 54, 13-55, 1 and p. 55,
4-5 and 7-9 (Diiring).

Ὁ Crantor, frag. 5 (Kayser)=frag. 5 (Mullach, Frag.
Philos. Graec. iii, pp. 141-148). Plutarch’s expression sug-
gests that his immediate source was Eudorus (see note @ on
1019 ε supra).

¢ Cf. ‘ Timaeus Locrus”’ 96 8; Theon Smyrnaeus,
pp. 68, 12~69, 3 (Hiller); Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii,
p. 178, 2-11 (Diehl). The integer 384 is mentioned by
Chalcidius too (Platonis Timaeus, pp. 116, 19-117, 1
[Wrobel]=p. 98, 9-11 [Waszink]) but only in passing as

300

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1020

monic transposition the whole scale is raised in pitch
along with the first of the numbers.* Eudorus, then,
following Crantor ὃ took as the first of the numbers
384,° which is the product of six multiplied by 64;
and they were attracted by the number 64 because
it has 72 as sesquioctavan.? It is more in accord with
Plato’s words, however, to assume the half of this
number, for the “leimma’”’ that is left after the
sesquioctavans are taken?’ will have its ratio ex-
pressed in the numbers that Plato has given, 256 to
243, if 192 is made the first number.’ If the double
of this be made the first number, the “‘ leimma ”’ will
be the same in ratio, to be sure, but double in number,
being as 512 is to 486, for four thirds of 192 come to

another possibility. Severus adopted 768, twice 384, in
order to make the whole scale end with a ‘“ leimma”
(Proclus, op. cit., ii, pp. 191, 1-192, 12 [Diehl)).

ἃ Contrast Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 68, 13-69, 1 (Hiller)
and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 3-7 (Diehl).

¢ Cf. 1022 a mfra (ἀφαιρουμένου δὲ τούτου [scil. διτόνου]
περίεστι τοῦ ὅλου . . .) and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii,
p. 177, 10-13 (Diehl).

f So it was by Theon Smyrnaeus (pp. 67, 21-68, 12 and
86, 15-87, 3 [Hiller], with which cf. Porphyry, /n Ptolemaer
Harmonica, p. 130, 9-16 [Diiring]), by Chalcidius (Platonis
Timaeus, pp. 116, 12-118, 3 [Wrobel]=pp. 98, 3-99, 9
[Waszink]), and by Aristides Quintilianus (De Musica iii, 1
[p. 96, 25-28, Winnington-Ingram]). Plutarch’s argument
for 192 (see 1021 r—1022 a infra, and cf. Theon Smyrnaeus,
p. 69, 3-6 [Hiller]) is invalid, however, first because Plato
speaks only of ratios (¢f. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 69, 7-9
[Hiller], and see note ὦ on 1018 £ supra) and furthermore
because 192 would not serve the purpose of clearing fractions
after the first fourth but in the second would give 288, 324,
3644 (cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 8-30
{Diehl}), as Chalcidius himself duly records without re-
cognizing the implication of it (loc. cat., pp. 117, 18-118, 3
[Wrobel]=p. 99, 6-9 [Waszink]).

301

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1020) τὰ avs’ τῶν' δὲ τπδ' τὰ φιβ΄. καὶ οὐκ ἄλογος ἡ
ἐπὶ τοῦτον ἀναγωγὴ τὸν ἀριθμὸν" ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς
περὶ τὸν Kpavtopa παρασχοῦσα τὸ" εὔλογον" τὰ
yap ξδ' καὶ κύβος ἐστὶν ἀπὸ πρώτου τετραγώνου
καὶ τετράγωνος ἀπὸ πρώτου κύβου γενόμενος δ᾽
ἐπὶ τὸν γ΄," πρῶτον ὄντα περιττὸν" καὶ πρῶτον τρί-
γωνον καὶ πρῶτον τέλειον ovTa καὶ ἡμιόλιον, ρΘβ'

E πεποίηκεν, ἔχοντα καὶ αὐτὸν ἐπόγδοον, ὡς δεί-
ἕξομεν.

17. ἹΙρότερον δὲ τί τὸ λεῖμμά ἐστι καὶ τίς ἡ
διάνοια τοῦ ἰλάτωνος μᾶλλον κατόψεσθε τῶν εἰω-
θότων ἐν ταῖς [[υθαγορικαῖς σχολαῖς λέγεσθαι
βραχέως ὑπομνησθέντες. ἔστι γὰρ διάστημα ἐν
μελῳδίᾳ πᾶν τὸ περιεχόμενον ὑπὸ δυεῖν φθόγγων
ἀνομοίων τῇ τάσει" τῶν δὲ διαστημάτων ἕν ὁ κα-

1 FE, B, f, m,r; τὰ -e, τι, Escor. 72, Aldine.

oO ο

3 ~ > “~ 4 τ
2 τούτων ἀναγωγία τῶν ἀριθμῶν -r3 τούτων ἀναγωγὴ τῶν

ο
ἀριθμῶν -f, m. 5 χὸν -Ἰ}. 4 τὸν τρία -E, Ὁ.
5 περιττὸν καὶ πρῶτον... .. τέλειον ὄντα -omitted by r.

@ 2,6. 192 (not Crantor’s 384). Plutarch contends in what
follows that the use of 64 as multiplier, by which 192 is
originally reached, is what made Crantor’s procedure appear
to be reasonable. In the procedure as given by Proclus
(In Platonis Timaewm ii, Ὁ. 177, 3-26 [Diehl]) 64 is first
taken (lines 3-4; cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 67, 21-68, 1
{Hiller]) and is then multiplied by three to give 192 (line 8 ;
cf. Plutarch infra and Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 68, 3-4 [Hiller]),
and finally 192 is doubled to give 384 (lines 22-26).

> 2,6, 64=48=8*%. Cf. Philo Jud., De Opificio Mundi 93
and 106 (i, p. 32, 1-4 and p. 38, 2-6 [Cohn]); Anatolius,
p. 35, 14-16 (Heiberg)=Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., Ὁ. 54,
13-15 (De Falco). For eight as the first cubic number see
note a on page 281 supra.

¢ See note 6 on page 279 supra.

302

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1020

256 but of 384 to 512. Raising it to this number @ is
not unreasonable either but even for Crantor and his
followers is the source of what is reasonable in their
procedure, for 64 is both a cubic number from the
first square number and a square number from the
first cubic number ὃ and, multiplied by three, which
is the first odd ὁ and first triangular number ¢ and
the first perfect ὁ and first sesquialteran number,f
makes 192, which itself has a sesquioctavan also, as
we shall show. 9

17. What the “leimma”’ is and what is Plato’s
meaning you will perceive more clearly, however,
after having first been reminded briefly of the
customary statements in the Pythagorean treatises.
Tor an interval in music is all that is encompassed by
two sounds dissimilar in pitch” ; and of the intervals

ἃ See note ¢ on Plat. Quaest. 1003 F supra.

e Cf. Quaest. Romanae 288 νυ, De Iside 374 a, Fabius
Maximus iv, 7 (176 pv), and Quaest. Conviv. 738 τ and 744 B
for the different senses in which three and six is each the
‘first perfect number”; cf. also Anatolius, p. 31, 7-9
(Heiberg)=Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., Ὁ. 17, 4-5 (De
Falco) and for six see note ¢ on 1018 ὁ supra.

f Cf. Nicomachus, Avrithmetica Introductio 1, xix, 2-3
(p. 49, 10-19 [Hoche]); Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 81, 1-2
(Hiller); Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis τ, vi, 43 (“primus
hemiolius tria ...’’).

9 See 1021 F wnfra.

» This is not the same as the definition given in 1026 a
supra (page 253, note a) and is not the “ Pythagorean ”’ de-
finition but is that of Aristoxenus (lementa Harmonica i, 15,
25-32) and his followers, as Porphyry says (Jn Ptolemaez
Harmonica, p. 91, 1-3; p. 93, 19-28; p. 125, 16-24; p. 128,
5-6 [Diiring]). Cf. Cleonides and Gaudentius in Musici
Scriptores Graeci, p. 179, 11-12 and pp. 329, 23-330, 4 (Jan) ;
and Aristides Quintilianus, De Musica i, 7 (p. 10, 18-19
[Winnington-Ingram]).

305

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1020) λούμενος τόνος, @ τὸ διὰ πέντε μεῖζόν ἐστι τοῦ διὰ
τεσσάρων. τοῦτον οἱ μὲν ἁρμονικοὶ δίχα τεμνό-
μενον οἴονται δύο διαστήματα ποιεῖν, ὧν ἑκάτερον
ἡμιτόνιον καλοῦσιν" οἱ δὲ Πυθαγορικοὶ τὴν μὲν εἰς
ἴσα τομὴν ἀπέγνωσαν αὐτοῦ τῶν δὲ τμημάτων ἀν-

F ίσων ὄντων λεῖμμα τὸ ἔλαττον ὀνομάζουσιν, ὅτι τοῦ
ἡμίσεος' ἀπολείπει. διὸ Kal τῶν συμφωνιῶν τὴν
διὰ τεσσάρων οἱ μὲν δυεῖν τόνων καὶ ἡμιτονίου
ποιοῦσιν ot δὲ δυεῖν καὶ λείμματος. μαρτυρεῖν δὲ
δοκεῖ τοῖς μὲν ἁρμονικοῖς ἡ αἴσθησις τοῖς δὲ μαθη-
per τοις 7 proce, Ἢ ἧς τοιοῦτος ὁ τρόπος ἐστίν"

1 ἡμίσεως -e, ἃ, τη (corrected), Escor. 721 (corrected).

* This definition also is not ‘‘ Pythagorean ”’ but is that of
Aristoxenus (Hlementa Harmonica i, 21, 20-24 and ii, 46, 1-2),
sharply criticized by Ptolemy (Harmonica, pp. 20, 13-21,
20 [Diiring]; cf. Porphyry, Jn Ptolemaei Harmonica, Ὁ. 126,
7-19 [Diiring]); cf. Bacchius and Gaudentius (Musici
Scriptores Graeci, Ὁ. 293, 6-7 and p. 338, 11-12 [Jan]) and
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 53, 5-8 (Hiller).

> Aristoxenus, Hlementa Harmonica ii, 46, 3 and 57,
11-12; ef. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 53, 8-10 (Hiller) and
Boethius, De Institutione Musica 111, i (p. 268, 21-25 [Fried-
lein]). By of ἁρμονικοί here Plutarch means neither theorists

_ earlier than Aristoxenus (Elementa Harmonica i, 2, 8-11 and
ii, 40, 25-26) nor “‘ dilettanti ’’ (Maria Timpanaro Cardini,
Pitagorici : Testimonianze e Frammenti, Fasc. ii [ Firenze,
1962], p. 213 note) but Aristoxenus and his followers, as is
confirmed by of μὲν δυεῖν τόνων Kat ἡμιτονίου ποιοῦσιν infra.

¢ See 1017 F supra (. .. τὴν εἰς ἴσα τοῦ τόνου διανομὴν
ἀπογιγνώσκοντες) and ς΄. Porphyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica,
p. 67, 3-8 (Diiring); Euclid, Sectio Canonis 16; ‘Theon
Smyrnaeus, p. 53, 13-15 (Hiller) ; Boethius, De Institutione
ae ul, i and xi (pp. 269, 32-270, 1 and pp. 285, 9-286,

4 [Friedlein] = Archytas, frag. A 19 [D.-K.]).

4 See 1018 £ supra (page 285, note 6).

e Aristoxenus, Llementa Harwouiea i, 24, 9-11 and ii,
46, 2 and 56, 14-58, 5. Cf. Ptolemy, Harmonica, p. 91,
21-22 and Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 67, 10-12 (Hiller).

304

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1020

one is what is called the tone, that by which the fifth
is greater than the fourth. The harmonists think
that this, when divided in two, makes two intervals,
each of which they call a semitone®; but the
Pythagoreans denied that it is divisible into equal
parts ὁ and, as the segments are unequal, name the
lesser of them “ leimma ”’ because it falls short of the
half.¢ This is also why among the consonances the
fourth is by the former made to consist of two tones
and a semitone ὁ and by the latter of two and a
“leimma.’’* Sense-perception seems to testify in
favour of the harmonists but in favour of the mathe-
maticians 7 demonstration,” the manner of which is

* Cf. Philolaus, frag. B 6 (i, p. 410, 3-8 [D.-K.] with
note e on 1019 a supra); Ptolemy, Harmonica, pp. 22,
17-23, 3 (Diiring) ; Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, Ὁ. 183,
20-21 and 23-25 (Diehl).

9 i.e. the Pythagoreans just mentioned ; see 1021 p infra
(ὀρθῶς ὑπὸ τῶν μαθηματικῶν λεῖμμα προσηγόρευται) and note ὦ
on 1019 a supra.

» Cf. Ptolemy, Harmonica, pp. 21, 25-22, 1 (Diiring);
and Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 69, 17-70, 1 (Hiller), where of
μὴ λόγῳ ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀκοῇ ταῦτα κρίνοντες is the conventional
characterization of the Aristoxenians (cf. Proclus, Jn Platonis
Timaeum ii, p. 170, 7-10 [Diehl] ; Boethius, De Institutione
Musica τι, xxxi and ul, i=p. 267, 4-5 and p. 268, 21-22
[Friedlein]) in contrast to the Pythagoreans, who made
reason, i.e. mathematical demonstration, the criterion of
musical science (cf. [ Plutarch], De Musica, 1144 Fr; Aristides
Quintilianus, De Musica iii, 2=p. 97, 3-7 [Winnington-
Ingram]; Ptolemy, Harmonica, Ὁ. 6, 1-13 [Diiring];
Ptolemais of Cyrene in Porphyry, Jn Ptolemaei Harmonica,
pp. 25, 9-26, 4 [Diiring]). For the attitude of Aristoxenus
himself cf. his Hlementa Harmonica ii, 32, 10-33, 2. Theo-
phrastus spoke of τῶν ἁρμονικῶν καὶ αἰσθήσει κρινόντων in con-
trast to those who made numerical ratio the criterion (Por-
phyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 62, 2-3 { Diiring|=Theo-
phrastus, frag. 89, 2 [Wimmer)]).

305

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1020) ἐλήφθη διὰ τῶν ὀργάνων θεωρηθὲν᾽ ὅτι τὸ μὲν διὰ
πασῶν τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον ἔχει τὸ δὲ διὰ πέντε τὸν
ἡμιόλιον τὸ δὲ διὰ τεσσάρων τὸν ἐπίτριτον ὁ δὲ

102] τόνος τὸν ἐπόγδοον. ἔξεστιν δὲ καὶ νῦν βασανίσαι
τἀληθὲς 1 7° βάρη δυεῖν ἄνισα χορδῶν ἐξαρτήσαντας
ἢ δυεῖν ἰσοκοίλων αὐ ῶν τὸν ἕτερον μήκει διπλά-
σιον. τοῦ" ἑτέρου ποιήσαντας" τῶν μὲν γὰρ αὐλῶν ὁ
μείζων βαρύτερον φθέγξεται" ὡς ὑπάτη πρὸς
νήτην," τῶν δὲ “χορδῶν ἡ ἡ τῷ. διπλασίῳ κατατεινο-

μένη βάρει τῆς ἑτέρας ὀξύτερον. ὡς νήτη πρὸς
ὑπάτην. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ διὰ πασῶν ὃ ὁμοίως δὲ
καὶ τρία πρὸς δύο ληφθέντα μήκη καὶ βάρη τὸ διὰ
πέντε ποιήσει καὶ “τέσσαρα πρὸς τρία τὸ διὰ τεσσά-
ρων, ὧν τοῦτο μὲν ἐπίτριτον ἔχει λόγον ἐκεῖνο δὲ
ἡμιόλιον. ἐὰν δὲ ὡς ἐννέα πρὸς ὀκτὼ γένηται τῶν

1 ληφθὲν -r} (corrected in margin).

2 ἔστι -f, τὰ, Escor. 723 ἔσται -r? (ει, superscript over αἱ
-r*),

8. εἶ Tt. τ τοῦ -omitted by τ.

5 φθέγγεται -B. § νήτην -omitted by r.

᾿ βάρη -e, u, Escor. 721 (corrected).

8 ἐστὶ «τὸ» διὰ πασῶν -Hubert; but cf. 1018 ν be ie
(πρὸς δὲ τὰ ς΄ διὰ πασῶν ὡς νήτη πρὸς ὑπάτην).

ΒΒ epi -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine; γίνηται -f, m, r

4 The following two experiments are ascribed to “* various
Pythagoreans’”’ by Porphyry (Jn Ptolemaei Harmonica,
pp. 119, 13-120, 7 [Diiring]) and to Pythagoras himself by
Censorinus (De Die Natali x, 8-12=pp. 17, 19-19, 2
{Hultsch]). Introduced by the story of the blacksmith’s
hammers, they are among those ascribed to Pythagoras by
Nicomachus (Harmonices Man. 6= Musici Scriptores Graeci,
pp. 246, 5-248, 26 [Jan]), whose account was copied by
Iamblichus (Vita Pyth. 115-119). Versions similar to this
are given by Gaudentius (Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 540,
4— 341, 25 [Jan]), Macrobius (Jn Somnium Scipionis τι, i,
9-14), and Boethius (De Institutione Musica τ, x-xi). The

306

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1020-1021

as follows. It has been found by observation with
instruments that the octave has the duple ratio and
the fifth the sesquialteran and the fourth the ses-
quitertian and the tone the sesquioctavan. It is
possible even now to test the truth of this ¢ either by
suspending unequal weights from two strings or by
making one of two pipes with equal cavities double
the length of the other, for of the two pipes the
larger will sound lower as hypaté to nété and of the
strings the one stretched by the double weight will
sound higher than the other as nété to hypaté. This
is an octave.? Similarly too, when lengths and
weights of three to two are taken, they will produce
the fifth and of four to three the fourth, the latter of
which has sesquitertian ratio and the former ses-
quialteran. If the inequality of the weights or the

longest account of such experiments but without the story
of the hammers is given—in part from Adrastus—by Theon
Smyrnaeus (pp. 57, 1-61, 11; pp. 65, 10-66, 11; p. 66,
20-23 [Hiller]), whereas of them all Chalcidius (Platonis
Timaeus, p. 112, 16-19 [Wrobel]=p. 94, 14-16 [Waszink])
mentions—and ascribes to Pythagoras—only that with the
suspended weights (cf. Aristides Quintilianus, De Musica
iii, 1=pp. 94, 11-95, 7 [Winnington-Ingram]). The experi-
ments were dismissed as “* inexact ”’ by Ptolemy (Harmonica,
pp. 16, 32-17, 20 (Diiring]) but without mention and pre-
sumably without knowledge of the physical laws that make
their professed results erroneous (οὐ, Burkert, Weisheit und
Wissenschaft, pp. 354-357).

> The double weight would not produce an octave, for the
frequency of vibration and hence the pitch varies with the
square root of the weight stretching the string. lor the
opposite effect of increasing the length of the pipe and the
weight suspended from the string cf. Nicomachus, Har-
monices Man. 4 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 243, 10-244,
9 [Jan]) and Censorinus, De Die Natali x, 12 (pp. 18, 94--
19, 2 [Hultsch]).

307

(1021)

C

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

Β βαρῶν 7 ἢ τῶν μηκῶν ἡ ἀνισότης, ποιήσει διάστημα
τονιαῖον οὐ σύμφωνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐμμελές, ὡς εἰπεῖν ἔμ-
βραχυ, τῷ" τοὺς φθόγγους, ἂν ἀνὰ μέρος κρου-

~ 4 e ~
σθῶσι, παρέχειν ἡδὺ φωνοῦντας Kal προσηνές, ἂν
δὲ ὁμοῦ, τραχὺ" καὶ λυπηρόν" ἐν δὲ ταῖς συμφω-
νίαις, κἂν ὁμοῦ κρούωνται κἂν ἐναλλάξ, ἡδέως προσ-
ίεται τὴν συνήχησιν" ἡ αἴσθησις. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ
καὶ διὰ λόγου τοῦτο δεικνύουσιν. ἐν μὲν γὰρ ἄρ-
μονίᾳ τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἔκ τε τοῦ διὰ πέντε σύγκειται
καὶ τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων, ἐν δ᾽ ἀριθμοῖς τὸ διπλάσιον

ay ee / “-

ἔκ τε τοῦ ἡμιολίου καὶ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου" τὰ γὰρ ip"
TOV μὲν θ’ ἐστὶν ἐπίτριτα τῶν δ᾽ 7’ ἡμιόλια τῶν
δὲ s” διπλάσια. σύνθετος οὖν ὁ τοῦ διπλασίου"
λόγος ἐστὶν ἐκ τοῦ ἡμιολίου καὶ τοῦ ἐπιτρίτου
καθάπερ ὁ τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ἐκ᾽ τοῦ διὰ πέντε καὶ

- \ / 9 2 > ~ A \ / “A
τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων, ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖ TO διὰ πέντε τοῦ
διὰ τεσσάρων τόνῳ κἀνταῦθα τὸ ἡμιόλιον τοῦ ἐπι-

“A / A /
τρίτου τῷ ἐπογδόῳ μεῖζόν ἐστι. φαίνεται τοίνυν
“A / ᾽ὔ
ὅτι τὸ διὰ πασῶν τὸν διπλάσιον λόγον ἔχει καὶ τὸ
διὰ πέντε τὸν ἡμιόλιον καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τὸν
>
ἐπίτριτον καὶ ὁ τόνος TOV ἐπόγδοον.
3 “-

18. ᾿Αποδεδειγμένου δὲ τούτου, σκοπῶμεν εἰ
δίχα τέμνεσθαι πέφυκε τὸ ἐπόγδοον᾽" εἰ γὰρ μὴ
1 τὸ -€, uy, Yr, Escor. 12, Aldine.

2 παχὺ -f, m, τ, Aldine.
3 συνήθειαν -B 3 σύγχυσιν τ.
4 καὶ -omitted by u.
: 5 διπλάσιον -u.
6 εἰς -e, τι, Escor. 72! (corrected in margin).°
7 ἀποδεδειγμένου . . . TO ἐπόγδοον -omitted by f.

α Cf. Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 6 (Musici Scriptores
Graeci, Ὁ. 246, 11-14 [Jan]) ; Ptolemy, Harmonica, p. 15, 10-
17 and p. 16, 14-16 and 25-28 (Diiring) ; Theon Smyrnaeus,
p. 49, 4-5 and p. 75, 15-17 (Hiller).

308

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1021

lengths be made as nine to eight, however, it will
produce an interval, that of the tone, not concordant
but tuneful ¢ because, to put it briefly, the notes it
gives, if they are struck successively, sound sweet and
agreeable but, if struck together, harsh and painful,
whereas in the case of consonances, whether they be
struck together or alternately, the sense accepts with
pleasure the combination of sound.” What is more,
they give a rational demonstration of this too.° The
reason is that in a musical scale the octave is com-
posed of the fifth and the fourth and arithmetically
the duple is composed of the sesquialter and the
sesquiterce, for twelve is four thirds of nine and half
again as much as eight and twice as much as six.
Therefore the ratio of the duple is composite of the
sesquialter and the sesquiterce just as that of the
octave is of the fifth and the fourth, but in that case
the fifth is greater than the fourth by a tone and in
this the sesquialter greater than the sesquiterce by a
sesquioctave.? It is apparent, then, that the octave
has the duple ratio and the fifth the sesquialteran and
the fourth the sesquitertian and the tone the ses-
quioctavan.

18. Now that this has been demonstrated, let us
see whether the sesquioctave is susceptible of being

» Cf. Adrastus in Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 50, 22-51, 4
(Hiller) and Porphyry, Jn Ptolemaet Harmonica, p. 96, 1-6
(Diiring); Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 12 (Musici Serip-
tores Graeci, p. 262, 1-5 [Jan]}).

¢ Cf. Adrastus in Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 61, 20-23 and
with the following demonstration Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 62,
1-63, 2 (Hiller); Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 113, 1-20
(Wrobel)=p. 95, 1-15 (Waszink); Ptolemy, Harmonica,
pp. 11, 24-12, 1 (Diiring).

4 Cf. Euclid, Sectio Canonis 13.

309

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1021) πέφυκεν, ovde ὁ τόνος. ἐπειδὴ πρῶτοι" τὸν ἐπόγ-
D Soov λόγον ὁ ὁ θ' καὶ 6 η΄ ποιοῦντες οὐδὲν διάστημα

μέσον ἔχουσι διπλασιασθέντων δ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων ὁ
παρεμπίπτων μεταξὺ δύο ποιεῖ διαστήματα, δῆλον
ὅτι τούτων μὲν ἴ ἴσων ὄντων δίχα τέμνεται τὸ ἐπόγ-
δοον. ἀλλὰ μὴν διπλάσια γίγνεται τῶν μὲν θ'
τὰ ιη΄ τῶν δ᾽ η΄ τὰ ις΄, δέχονται δὲ οὗτοι μεταξὺ
τὰ ιζ' καὶ γίγνεται τῶν διαστημάτων τὸ μὲν μεῖζον
τὸ δ᾽ ἔλαττον" ἔ ἔστι γὰρ TO μὲν πρότερον ἐφεπτα-
καιδέκατον τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἐφεξκαιδέκατον. εἰς
ἄνισα τοίνυν τέμνεται τὸ ἐπόγδοον᾽ εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ
ὁ τόνος. οὐδέτερον ἄρα γίγνεται διαιρεθέντος
αὐτοῦ τῶν τμημάτων ἡμιτόνιον, ἀλλ᾽ ὀρθῶς ὑπὸ
τῶν μαθηματικῶν λεῖμμα" προσηγόρευται. καὶ
τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ὃ φησιν ὁ Πλάτων τὰ ἐπίτριτα" τοῖς
ἐπογδόοις συμπληροῦντα τὸν θεὸν λείπειν ἑκάστου
μόριον αὐτῶν, οὗ λόγος ἐστὶν ὃν ἔχει τὰ ς΄ καὶ ν'
καὶ o πρὸς τὰ γ΄ καὶ μ' καὶ σ΄. εἰλήφθω γὰρ τὸ
διὰ τεσσάρων ἐν ἀριθμοῖς δυσὶ τὸν ἐπίτριτον λόγον

᾿ ἐπεὶ δὲ -Stephanus.

5 πρῶτον -τ, Aldine.

᾿ λεῖμμα «τὸ ἔλαττονΣ -Maurommiates.
4 f,m,r; τὰ ἡρίτα -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.

4 With the following demonstration cf. Anon. ij Platonis
Theaetetum (Pap. Berl. 9782), cols. 34, 47-35, 12 (p. 23
[Diels-Schubart]) ; Aristides Quintilianus, De Musica iii, 1
(pp. 95, 19-96, 4 [Winnington-Ingram]); Boethius, De
Institutione Musica ur, 1 (p. 270, 4-18 [Friedlein}); and
Proclus, In Platenis Timaeum ii, Ὁ. 179, 18-25 (Diehl).

® This is inconsistent with the statement that between
nine and eight there is no interval. The authors cited in the
last preceding note speak of numbers and ratios rather than
intervals, whereas Theon Smyrnaeus (p. 70, 1-3 and 15-16
(tiller|) asserts that the sesquioctave is indivisible because
the interval of nine to eight, i.e. the unit, is indivisible.

310

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1021

divided in half, for, if it is not, neither is the tone.¢
Since nine and eight, the first numbers producing the
sesquioctavan ratio, have no intermediate interval
but between them when both are doubled the inter-
vening number produces two intervals, it is clear
that, if these intervals are equal, the sesquioctave is
divided in half. But now twice nine is eighteen and
twice eight sixteen; and between them these
numbers contain seventeen, and one of the intervals
turns out to be larger and the other smaller, for the
former is eighteen seventeenths and the second is
seventeen sixteenths. It is into unequal parts, then,
that the sesquioctave is divided ; and, if this is, the
tone is also. Neither of its segments, therefore,
when it is divided, turns out to be a semitone ; but
it ὁ has rightly been called by the mathematicians
“leimma.’’ ὦ This is just what Plato says @ god in
filling in the sesquiterces with the sesquioctaves
leaves a fraction of each of them, the ratio of which
is 256 to 243. For let the fourth be taken as ex-
pressed by two numbers comprising the sesquitertian

ὁ i.e. what is commonly called the semitone, for λέγεται
κοινῶς μὲν ἡμιτόνιον ἰδίως δὲ λεῖμμα (Gaudentius in Musici
Scriptores Graeci, p. 342, 7-11 [Jan]; ef. zbid., p. 344, 5-6
and Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 53, 8-13 [Hiller] with Porphyry,
In Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 67, 5-8 [Diiring]}).

@ See supra 1020 Ἐ-Ὲ and 1019 a, notes ὦ and ὁ.

¢ This sentence is a paraphrase of Timaeus 36 5 1-5,
quoted supra 1027 c and 1020 8.

7 With what follows in the rest of this chapter cf. especially
Nicomachus, Lxcerpta 2 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 267,
2-268, 2 {[Jan]). Cf. also Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus,
pp. 117, 1-11 and 118, 4-16 (Wrobel) =pp. 98, 11-99, 1 and
99, 10-19 (Waszink); Boethius, De Institutione Musica
1, ii (pp. 272, 11-273, 14 [Friedlein]) ; and most succinctly
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 8-13 (Diehl).

311

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

/ a , \ A e ¢ A
(1021) περιέχουσι, τοῖς avs’ καὶ τοῖς p9P’, ὧν ὁ μὲν
ἐλ / A oO f ’ θ \ \ / 1
ἐλάττων, τὰ p°B’, κείσθω κατὰ τὸν βαρύτατον
“- ’ ,ὔ 2 e \ ’ \ ,
τοῦ τετραχόρδου φθόγγον" ὁ de μείζων, τὰ avs’,
\ \ 39“ 2 3 / ¢ is
κατὰ τὸν ὀξύτατον. ἀποδεικτέον OTL, τούτου συμ-
πληρουμένου δυσὶν ἐπογδόοις, λείπεται διάστημα
τηλικοῦτον ἡλίκον ὡς ἐν ἀριθμοῖς τὰ ς΄ καὶ v’ καὶ
o’ πρὸς τὰ y’ καὶ μ' καὶ σ΄. τοῦ γὰρ βαρυτέρου
Ἐ' τόνον' émitabévtos,® ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐπόγδοον, γίγνεται
6 , (A / ” ΠΣ ᾽ ,ὔ
σις΄. τούτου πάλιν τόνον ἄλλον ἐπιταθέντος, γίγ-
νεται σμγ΄. ταῦτα μὲν γὰρ ὑπερέχει τῶν σις" τοῖς
KC’ τὰ δὲ σις" τῶν ρΟβ’ τοῖς Kd’, ὧν τὰ μὲν KC’
τῶν as’ oydod® ἐστι τὰ δὲ Kd’ τῶν ρΟβ΄. διὸ
γίγνεται τῶν τριῶν τούτων ἀριθμῶν ὅ τε μέγιστος
ἐπόγδοος τοῦ μέσου καὶ ὁ μέσος τοῦ ἐλαχίστου" τὸ
δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐλαχίστου" διάστημα μέχρι τοῦ peyt-
στου, τουτέστι τὸ ἀπὸ τῶν pPP’ μέχρι τῶν opy’,”
1022 δίτονον᾽ ἡ ἐκ δυεῖν συμπληρούμενον" ἐπογδόων. ἀφ-
αἱιρουμένου δὲ τούτου, περίεστι τοῦ ὅλου διά-
στημα λοιπὸν τὸ μεταξὺ τῶν σμγ΄ καὶ τῶν OVS’, τὰ
vy’: διὸ καὶ λεῖμμα τοῦτον τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὠνόμαζον.
1 τὸν βαρύτατον -f; τὸ βαρύτατον -m, Υ ; τὸν βαρύτερον -E,
B, ec, τὶ ; τὸν βαρύτονον -Escor. 72, Aldine.
2 φθόγγου -u.
8 πρὸς τὰ γ΄ καὶ μ΄ καὶ σ΄ -f, m, Tr (ἔχει πρὸς ... σ΄’ -Turne-
bus); omitted by E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.
4 τόνον -Benseler (De Hiatu, p. 528); τόνῳ -Mss.
5 ἐπιθέντος -f. ,
6 ois’ -E, B, e, Escor. 72; σιβ' -ἃ : τὰ σις" -f, m, r.
7 KE, B, e, Escor. 72; τόνῳ ἄλλῳ -f, m, r3 τόνον ἄλλως -U,
Aldine.
8. KE, B, ἢ, m, rs τὰ δὲ ws’ -e, Escor. 72, Aldine; ra δὲ ιβ΄
=U.
® Xylander ; ἐπόγδοα -Mss.
9. τὸ δὲ ἐλαχίστου τὸ -U.

312

1

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1021-1022

ratio, 256 and 192; and of these let the smaller, 192,
be placed at the lowest note of the tetrachord and
the larger, 256, at the highest.2 It is to be proved
that, when this is filled in with two sesquioctaves,
there is left an interval of the size that numerically
expressed is 256 to 243. This is so, for, when the
lower note has been raised a tone, which is a ses-
quioctave, it amounts to 216; and, when this has
been raised again another tone, it amounts to 243,
for the latter exceeds 216 by 27 and 216 exceeds 192
by 24, and of these 27 is an eighth of 216 and 24 an
eighth of 192. Consequently, of these three numbers
the largest turns out to be sesquioctavan of the
intermediate and the intermediate sesquioctavan of
the smallest ; and the interval from the smallest to
the largest, z.e. that from 192 to 243, amounts to an
interval of two tones filled in with two sesquioctaves.
When this is subtracted, however, there remains of
the whole as an interval left over what is between
243 and 256, that is thirteen; and this is the very
reason why they named this number “ leimma.” ὃ

* For the assignment of the larger numbers to the higher
notes see 1018 pb supra with note ¢ there, and especially
[Plutarch], De Musica 1138 Ἐ--, 1139 c, 1140 a and Nico-
machus, Harmonices Man. 6 and Excerpta 7 (Musici
Scriptores Graeci, Ὁ. 248, 18-23 and p. 279, 12-14 [Jan]).
For advocacy of the opposite procedure cf. Adrastus in
Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 65, 10-66, 11 (Hiller). On the two
procedures cf. Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft, p. 359,

n. 54.
> See 1018 & supra with notes d and ὁ there.

11 τουτέστι. . . μέχρι τῶν apy’ -deleted as a scholium by
Papabasileios (Athena, x [1898], p. 226).
12 διάτονον -F.
18 Maurommates ; συμπληροῦμεν -Μ88.
313

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

3 \ > 3 / - » | 4
(1022) ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν εὐσημότατα δηλοῦσθαι τὴν ]λάτωνος
/ ’ / A 3 A
οἶμαι γνώμην ἐν τούτοις τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς.
: Ξ ; /

19. Ἕτεροι δὲ τοῦ" διὰ τεσσάρων ὅρους θέμενοι
τὸν μὲν ὀξὺν ἐν {τοῖς Σ" on τὸν δὲ βαρὺν ἐ ἐν τοῖς
σις" ἀναλόγως ἤδη" τοὺς" ἑξῆς περαίνουσιν, πλὴν
ὅτι τὸ λεῖμμα τῶν δυεῖν τόνων ἢ μεταξὺ λαμβάνουσι.
τοῦ γὰρ βαρυτέρου τόνον" ἐπιταθέντος γίγνεται
σμγ΄, τοῦ δ᾽ ὀξυτέρου τόνον' ἀνεθέντος" γίγνεται
σνς΄" ἔστι γὰρ ἐπόγδοα τὰ μὲν opy’ τῶν ows’ τὰ δὲ

Bonn’ τῶν σνς᾽ ὥστε τονιαῖον εἶναι τῶν διαστη-
μάτων ἑκάτερον λείπεσθαι δὲ τὸδ μεταξὺ τῶν
σμγ΄ καὶ τῶν avs’, ὅπερ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμιτόνιον ἀλλ᾽
ἔλαττον: τὰ μὲν γὰρ σπη΄ τῶν avs’ ὑπερέχει τοῖς

? \ \ 7 ~ 8 ᾽ὔ 10 a / \ \
Ap’ τὰ δὲ opy’ τῶν ats’ ὑπερέχει τοῖς Kl’ τὰ δὲ
ovs’ τῶν σμγ΄ ὑπερέχει τοῖς wy’: ταῦτα δ᾽ ἀμφο-

’, 11 ΄ ς “. > 4 See ’ Ἄν. 3 \
τέρων" τῶν ὑπεροχῶν ἐλάττω" ἢ ἡμίσεά ἐστι. διὸ
δυεῖν τόνων καὶ λείμματος, οὐ δυεῖν καὶ ἡμίσεος,
εὕρηται τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἔχει τοι-

4 > , > A > > / \ >
avtny ἀπόδειξιν. ἐκεῖνο δ᾽ οὐ πάνυ χαλεπὸν ἐκ

1 τοῦ -Maurommates (p. 42 in note ad p. 29, 20), B. Miiller
(1818): : τοὺς -MSS. 2 «τοῖς» -added by Stephanus.

ἤδη -E, B, e, u, Escor. 79 : τοίνυν -f, m, r, Aldine.

4 ποὺς ΤΕ C. (scil. ὅρους) : τοῖς -MSS.; τὰ -B. Miiller
(A873), cf... religua ’: in the versions of Turnebus and
Ay ΔΉΔΕτι

5 Maurommates after the version of Xylander; τὸ
λεῖμμα τῶν δυοῖν τῶν -Stephanus; τῶν λειμμάτων δυεῖν (or
δυοῖν) τῶν -mss. (with cross in margin Ἢ 7044 τ ΝΣ
margin -Ε) ; τὸ λεῖμμα δυοῖν τόνοιν -f?, and τηΐ in margin ;
TO λεῖμμα δυοῖν -r? in margin.

ὃ τόνον -Benseler (De Hiatu, Ὁ. 528) ; τόνῳ -Mss.

7 τόνον -e, ἃ, f, m, Escor. 72, Aldine; τόνου -r (with
three dots above ov); τόνῳ -E, B.

8 Stephanus; ἀναταθέντος Ἔ (τος superscript over θεν
erased and replaced by τὸς on the line), B, ἃ (ἀνα over

314

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1022

So I, for my part, think that Plato’s intention is most
clearly explained by these numbers.¢

19. As terms of the fourth, however, others ὃ put
the high note at 288 and the low at 216 and then
determine proportionally those that come next, except
that they take the “ leimma ”’ to be between the two
tones. For, when the lower note has been raised a
tone, the result is 243 and, when the higher has been
lowered a tone, it is 256, for 243 is nine eighths of 216
and 288 nine eighths of 256, so that each of the two
intervals is that of a tone and there is left what is
between 243 and 256; and this is not a semitone but
is less, for 288 exceeds 256 by 32 and 243 exceeds 216
by 27 but 256 exceeds 243 by thirteen, which is less
than half of both the excesses 32 and 27.° Con-
sequently it turns out that the fourth consists of two
tones and a “ leimma,’’ not of two tones and a half.
Such, then, is the demonstration of this point. As
to the following point, from what has been said

@ See 1020 c-p supra with note f on page 301.

® The alternative procedure described in the following
lines is given by Nicomachus, Hacerpta 2 (Musici Scriptores
Graeci, pp. 269, 8-270, 6 [Jan]).

¢ This is not proof that the leimma is less than half of the
tone, but the same mistake of substituting for the ratios
the differences between their terms is committed by Nico-
machus in Ewcerpta 2 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 270, 4-6
and 6-12 [Jan]; ef. also ibid., pp. 267, 15-268, 2).

erasure), f, m, Escor. 72; ἀναθέντος -e' (τα superscript
between a and @ -e*); ἀνατεθέντος -r.

ων
® Maurommates; τὸ -Εἰ ; τῶν -Β, us τὸν -all other mss.,
Aldine.
10 πρῖς λβ΄. . . τῶν ows’ ὑπερέχει -omitted by f, m, r.
1 Turnebus : ; ἀμφότερα -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine;
ἀμφότερα after ὑπεροχῶν -
ἐλάττων -f, r (with three dots above w).
$15

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1022) τῶν προειρημένων συνιδεῖν," τί δήποτε φήσας ὁ
’

ἅτων ἡμιολίους καὶ ἐπιτρίτους καὶ ἐπογδόους

C γίγνεσθαι διαστάσεις ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὰς

ἐπιτρίτους" ταῖς ἐπογδόοις οὐκ ἐμνήσθη τῶν ἡμι-

τ 3 \ / t \ ἐ / =
ολίων ἀλλὰ παρέλιπε. τὸ yap ἡμιόλιον τοῦ
ἐπιτρίτου τῷ ἐπογδόῳ (μεῖζόν ἐστι, ὥστε τοῦ
ἐπογδόουν" τῷ ἐπιτρίτῳ προστιθεμένου συμπλη-
ροῦσθαι καὶ τὸ ἡμιόλιον.

20. ᾿ἹἹποδεδειγμένων δὲ τούτων, τὸ μὲν συμ-
πληροῦν τὰ διαστήματα καὶ παρεντάττειν τὰς
μεσότητας, | εἰ καὶ μηδεὶς ἐ ἐτύγχανε πεποιηκὼς πρό-
τερον, ὑμῖν" ἂν αὐτοῖς ἕνεκα" γυμνασίας παρῆκα"
νῦν δὲ πολλοῖς κἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐξειργασμένου
TOUTOU μάλιστα δὲ Kpavrope | καὶ Κλεάρχῳ, καὶ
Θεοδώρῳ tots’ Σολεῦσι, μικρὰ περὶ τῆς τούτων
διαφορᾶς εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἀχρηστόν ἐστιν. ὁ γὰρ Θεό-

> ΤΑΣ τς Eee , , 8 A 5. 3.5. Ὃ

D δωρος, οὐχ ὡς ἐκεῖνοι δύο στίχους" ποιῶν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ
μιᾶς εὐθείας ἐφεξῆς τούς τε διπλασίους ἐκτάττων
καὶ τοὺς τριπλασίους, πρῶτον μὲν ἰσχυρίζεται τῇ

1 συνειδεῖν -u, f, πη}.

2 τὰς διαστάσεις -F.

8 ¢. . .> -added by Leonicus ; τῷ ἐπογδόῳ τῷ -EH, e, u, f,

δ. ν sa 7123 τῷ ἐπογδόῳ καὶ τῷ -B.
προστιθεμένῳ -f, m, τ.
Be ἡμῖν -all other mss., Aldine.
αὐνοῖς evexay -Β.
‘rots -omitted by f.
8 στοίχους -f, m, r (cf. 1027 τ supra [chap. 29 ad finem] :

> A ’,
ἐν δυσὶ στίχοις).

1 σι ᾿.

α 2,6. in Timaeus 36 a 6- 1 (see 1090 B supra), where in
B 1 Plato says τῷ τοῦ ἐπογδόου διαστήματι τὰ ἐπίτριτα πάντα
συνεπληροῦτο. In paraphrasing this Nicomachus explicitly
included the ἡμιόλια (Harmonices Man. 8= Musici Scriptores
Graeci, p. 250, 10-11 [Jan]), and the filling in of the ἡμιόλια
also was taken for granted by Proclus (Jn Platonis Timaewm

316

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1022

before it is not very difficult either to see why, after
Plato had said that there came to be intervals of
three to two and of four to three and of nine to eight,
when saying that those of four to three are filled in
with those of nine to eight he did not mention those
of three to two but omitted them.* The reason is
that the sesquialter (is greater than) the sesquiterce
by the sesquioctave {80 that with the sesquioctave's)
addition to the sesquiterce the sesquialter is filled in
as well.?

20. After the exposition of these matters the task
of filling in the intervals and inserting the means ¢ 1
should still have left to you for an exercise to do your-
selves though no one at all had happened to have
done it before ; but now that this has been worked
out by many excellent men and especially by Crantor
and Clearchus and Theodorus, all of Soli,? it is not
unprofitable to say a few words about the way in
which they disagree. For Theodorus unlike those
others does not make two rows but sets out the
double and the triple numbers one after another in a
single straight line,¢ relying for this in the first place

ii, p. 170, 25-26 and p. 175, 3-5 with p. 179, 3-6 and p. 185,
5-6 and 13-16 [Diehl]); cf. B. Kytzler, Hermes, ἸΧΧΧΥ
(1959), pp. 401-402.

> Cf. Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 115, 11-15 (Wrobel)
=p. 97, 7-10 (Waszink).

¢ See 1020 a supra with note 6 there.

¢ Crantor, frag. 6 (Kayser)=frag. 6 (Mullach, Frag.
Philos. Graec. iii, pp. 143-145) and Clearchus, frag. 4
(Wehrli) ; see 1027 pv supra (chap. 29 sub finem) with notes
d and ὁ there.

4 So later Severus, Porphyry, and Proclus himself
(Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 171, 4-9; p. 175, 17-
21; and p. 192, 24-27 [Diehl]), who does not mention the
priority of Theodorus of Soli.

317

(1022)

K

1027 F

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

λεγομένῃ κατὰ μῆκος σχίσει' τῆς οὐσίας δύο ποι-
ovon μοίρας ὡς ἐκ μιᾶς, οὐ τέσσαρας ἐκ δυεῖν,
ἔπειτά φησι τὰς τῶν μεσοτήτων παρεντάξεις οὕτω
λαμβάνειν προσήκειν" χώραν: εἰ δὲ μή, ταραχὴν
καὶ σύγχυσιν ἔσεσθαι καὶ μεταστάσεις εἰς" τὸ πρῶ-
τον εὐθὺς τριπλάσιον ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου διπλασίου τῶν
συμπληροῦν" ἑκάτερον ὀφειλόντων. τοῖς δὲ περὶ
τὸν Kpdvropa βοηθοῦσιν αἵ τε θέσεις τῶν ἀριθμῶν,
ἐπιπέδων ἐπιπέδοις καὶ τετραγώνων τετραγώνοις
καὶ κύβων κύβοις ἀντιθέτως συζυγούντων, τῇ τε
μὴ κατὰ τάξιν αὐτῶν λήψει ἀλλ᾽ ἐναλλὰξ ἀρτίων
καὶ" (30 b.) περιττῶν" (αὐτὸς ὁ Πλάτων). τὴν γὰρ

1 σχίσει -m (i Gver Original ἐ), ‘Turnebus ; σχέσει -all other
mMss., Aldine.

2 ποιοῦσι -u 3 ποιήσῃ -Aldine.

3 f,m,1r3 προσήκει -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72.

4 Emperius (Op. Philol., p. 340), cf. ‘‘ traiectiones ”’
-Xylander ; μεταστὰς εἰς -MSS.

5 E, B ; συμπληρούντων -all other mss., Aldine.

6 ἀρτίων καὶ 7... vac. 4-1/2 lines -E; vac. 2-1/2 lines
-B ... κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ (1022 © supra [chap. 21 init.]) -E, B;

apriwy καὶ emi... vac. 14-f; vac. 1I3-m,r... κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ

-f,m, r3 ἀρτίων καὶ ἐπὶ κατὰ (κατὰ -Escor. 723 ἐπὶκατὰ -u)
τὰ αὐτὰ -e, u, Escor. 72; see 1022 © supra (chap. 21 init.),
apparatus criticus, note 2 on page 212.

7 See 1017 c supra (chap. 30, page 268), apparatus criticus,
note 9: δευτέρα περιττῶν -E, B; δευτέρα (δευτέρα δὲ -f)
τῶν περιττῶν -f, τὰ, τ, Aldine; δευτεριττῶν -e, αν, Escor. 72
(ρατῶνπε -Escor. 72 in margin with three dots after δευτε).

ὃ <adros 6 Πλάτων» -added by Pohlenz; «Πλάτων -B.
Miiller (Hermes, iv [1870], pp. 399-403 and v [1871], p.
154).

α Timaeus 36 5 6-7 (ταύτην οὖν τὴν σύστασιν πᾶσαν διπλῆν
κατὰ μῆκος σχίσας .. .): ef. Proclus (Jn Platonis Timaeum
ii, p. 237, 15-27 [Diehl] and Jn Platonis Rem Publicam ii,

318

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1022, 1027

upon what is stated to be the cleavage of the sub-
stance lengthwise that makes two parts presumably
out of one,? not four out of two, and in the second
place saying that it is suitable for the insertions of
the means to be arranged in this sequence, as other-
wise there will be disorder and confusion and trans-
positions to the very first triple from the first double
of the terms that ought to fill in each of the two.?
Crantor and his followers,° however, are supported
by the position of the numbers, paired off with plane
numbers over against plane and square over against
square and cubic over against cubic numbers,? and
in their being taken not in order but alternately even

and (30 b.) odd by <Plato himself>.¢ For after

p. 143, 20-21 [Kroll]), who also takes this to show that the
numbers were meant to be arranged in a single row.

> 'The harmonic and arithmetical means of the first triple
(3 and 2) are already given by the first double and its means
(1, $ ξ, 2); of. the objection to the lambda of Adrastus
made by Proclus, Jn Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 187, 28-188,
1 and p. 192, 27-29 (Diehl).

¢ Among them Clearchus, who was mentioned with
Crantor just above, and Plutarch himself. The arrange-
ment in the form of a lambda is assumed later by Theon
Smyrnaeus (pp. 94, 11-96, 5 [Hiller]) and Macrobius (/n
Somnium Scipionis 1, vi, 46); of those who adopted it
earlier Proclus names only Adrastus, who elaborated a triple
form of it (Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 170, 26-
171, 4; p. 187, 17-26; and p. 192, 24-26 [Diehl]), which is
represented by the three successive diagrams of Chalcidius
(Platonis Timaeus, pp. 98, 13-118, 3 [Wrobel]=pp. 82, 20-
99, 9 [Waszink]).

@ See 1017 v-E supra (chap. 11), pages 271, note d-273,
note a.

¢ In Timaeus 35 B 4- 2 the order is 2, 3, 4, 9, 8, 27, 1.6.
alternately even and odd (cf. Macrobius, Jn Somnium
Scipionis τι, ii, 17), whereas the natural order (. . . 4, 8, 9, 27)
would be... even, even, odd, odd.

319

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1027) μονάδα κοινὴν οὖσαν ἀμφοῖν προτάξας λαμβάνει

τὰ ui καὶ ἐφεξῆς τὰ KO, μονονουχὶ" δεικνύων ἡ ἡμῖν

1028 ἣ ἣν ἑκατέρῳ γένει “χώραν ἀποδίδωσι. ταῦτα μὲν

οὖν ἑτέροις προσήκει μᾶλλον. ἐξακριβοῦν, τὸ δ᾽

ἀπολειπόμενον οἰκεῖόν ἐστι τῆς ὑποκειμένης ἡμῖν
πραγματείας.

F. 31. Οὐ yap ἐπίδειξιν ὁ Πλάτων θεωρίας μαθη-

ματικῆς ποιούμενος εἰς φυσικὴν ὑπόθεσιν μὴ δεο-

μένην μεσότητας ἀριθμητικὰς καὶ ἁρμονικὰς παρ-

εἰσήγαγεν ἀλλὰ ὡς μάλιστα δὴ τῇ συστάσει τῆς

ψυχῆς τοῦ λόγου τούτου" προσήκοντος. καίτοι

τινὲς μὲν ἐν τοῖς τάχεσι τῶν πλανωμένων σφαι-

ρῶν τινὲς δὲ μᾶλλον ἐ ἐν τοῖς ἀποστήμασιν ἔνιοι δ᾽ ἐν

τοῖς μεγέθεσι τῶν ἀστέρων οἱ δ᾽ ἄγαν ἀκριβοῦν δο-

Β κοῦντες ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἐπικύκλων διαμέτροις ζητοῦσι

τὰς εἰρημένας ἀναλογίας, ὡς τὴν ψυχὴν ἕνεκα τού-

των τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τοῖς οὐρανίοις ἐναρμόσαντος"

1 E, B; μονονουχὶ οὖν -all other mss., Aldine.
2 τοῦ λόγου τοῦ -U. 3 οὐρανοῖς ἐναρμώσαντες -U.
4 See 1027 © supra with note a on page 269.
> Plutarch may have in mind here not only the order
9, 8, 27 to which he has just referred but also the omission
of 16, the next power of two between 8 and 27 (cf. B. Kytzler,
Hermes, \xxxvii [1959], pp. 404-405).

¢ See 1017 © supra (chap. 11) with note f on page 271.

@¢ With all that follows in this sentence cf. Proclus, Jn
Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 212, 12-213, 7 (Diehl).

ε Plato in Timaeus 36 p 5-7 says that of the seven circles
three move τάχει. .. ὁμοίως and four ἀλλήλοις καὶ τοῖς τρισὶν
ἀνομοίως ἐν λόγῳ δέ and in Timaeus 39 p 4-5 speaks of
ἁπασῶν τῶν ὀκτὼ περιόδων τὰ πρὸς ἄλληλα. .. τάχη (cf. Re-
public 617 a 7-8 3). For the introduction of ‘ A edren?
into the astronomy of the Timaeus see supra Plat. Quaest.
1007 a with note ὦ there.

t Cf. Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 167, 8-17 (Wrobel)

320

<= Shee

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1027-1028

putting at the head the unit, which is common to
both,? he takes eight and next thereafter twenty-
seven,” all but showing us° the position that he assigns
to each of the two kinds. Now, to treat this with
greater precision is a task that belongs to others ;
but what remains is a proper part of our present
disquisition.

31. It is so because Plato did not as a display of
mathematical learning drag arithmetical and har-
monic means into a discourse on natural philosophy
where they are not wanted but introduced them on
the assumption that this calculation is especially
appropriate to the composition of the soul. Yet
certain people 2 look for the prescribed proportions
in the velocities of the planetary spheres,’ certain
others rather in their distances,’ some in the magni-
tudes of the stars,’ and those with a reputation for
exceedingly exact investigation in the diameters of
the epicycles,” assuming these to be the ends for
which the artificer fitted to the heavenly bodies the

=p. 148, 12-19 (Waszink); Macrobius, In Somnium Sci-
pionis τι, iii, 14-15 (= Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum.. .
Fragmenta, p. 63, 5-21 [Sodano]); Hippolytus, Refutatio
iv, 10, 1-11, 5 (pp. 42, 17-44, 22 [Wendland]). These are all
attempts to interpret Timaeus 36 pv 2-4, for which cf. Proclus,
In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 265, 8-29 (Diehl).

σ Perhaps by interpretation of Republic 616 Ἑ 3-8: cf.
Proclus, Jn Platonis Rem Publicam ii, Ὁ. 218, 2-28; p. 219,
23-29 ; and pp. 221, 28-222, 2 (Kroll) with Theon Smyrnaeus,
p. 143, 14-18 (Hiller) and Taylor, Commentary on Plato’s
Timaeus, p. 161, n. 2.

* Against the attempt to introduce epicycles into Plato’s
astronomy (6.5. Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 188, 25-189, 6
{Hiller] ; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, Ὁ. 176, 6-13 [Wrobel]
=p. 156, 19-24 [Waszink]) cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum
ii, p. 264, 19-25 and iii, p. 96, 13-32 and p. 146, 14-28 (Diehl).

321

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

> ε A , /
(1028) εἰς ἑπτὰ μοίρας νενεμημένην. πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ τὰ
\ a / > A a
Πυθαγορικὰ δεῦρο μεταφέρουσιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ μέσου
A ~ / ὃ
τὰς τῶν σωμάτων ἀποστάσεις τριπλασιάζοντες.
γίγνεται δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ μὲν τὸ πῦρ μονάδος τιθε-
μένης κατὰ δ᾽ ἀντίχθονα τριῶν κατὰ δὲ γῆν ἐννέα
καὶ κατὰ σελήνην εἰκοσιεπτὰ καὶ κατὰ τὸν “Ερμοῦ"
~ ‘ > , \ \ / ~ x
μιᾶς Kat ὀγδοήκοντα κατὰ δὲ Φωσφόρον τριῶν καὶ
7 ᾿ f > Seen \ A ν ’ \ Lf \ ,
μ΄ καὶ σ΄ Kat αὐτὸν δὲ Tov ἡλιον θ΄ Kai κ΄ καὶ ψ',
“ 4 ¢ , ΄, 4 , 4. \ \
ὅς γε ἅμα τετράγωνός Te καὶ κύβος ἐστί: διὸ Kat
τὸν ἥλιον ἔστιν ὅτε τετράγωνον καὶ κύβον προσ-

4 4 \ \ Ἁ ” 3. /
C ayopevovow. οὕτως δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐπανάγουσι

1 ἀποστάσει -B.

2 épunv -m, Yr, Escor. 72°F (ἣν superscript over οὔ),
Aldine.
8 ὅς γ᾽ -Hubert; ὅτι -F, B, e, u, Aldine; ὅτε -f, m, r,
Escor. 72; ὅστις -Stephanus (** qui numerus”’ -Turnebus).

PGF; Plutarch, Numa xl, 1-2 (67 p): . . . τοῦ σύμπαντος
κόσμου, οὗ μέσον οἱ Πυθαγορι κοὶ τὸ πῦρ ἱδρῦσθαι νομίζουσι καὶ
τοῦθ᾽ Ἑστίαν καλοῦσι καὶ μονάδα...

> Central fire and counter-earth identify this as the

_ Pythagorean system referred to by Aristotle (De Caelo 293
a 20-27 and Metaphysics 986 a 10-13) and elsewhere ascribed
to Philolaus (frags. A 16 and 17 [D.-K.]); but in that
system the orbit of the sun was located immediately above
that of the moon (Philolaus, frag. A 16 [D.-K.]; Alexander,
Metaph., pp. 38, 20-39, 3 and p. 40, 3-6) as it was by Plato
and Aristotle too (cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii,
pp. 60, 31-61, 2 and p. 62, 3-6 [Diehl] and Jn Platonis Rem
Publicam li, p. 220, 1-21 [Kroll]). The Pythagoreanizing
interpretation of the Timaeus reported by Plutarch in the
present passage is a contamination of the Philolaic system
and the planetary order widely though not universally
adopted later (cf. Heath, Aristarchus of Samos, pp. 106-107 ;
Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft, pp. 297-299, especially

322

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1028

soul that had been distributed into seven parts.
Many carry over into this context Pythagorean
notions too, multiplying by three the distances of the
bodies from the middle. This is brought about by
placing the unit at the central fire, three at the
counter-earth, nine at the earth and 27 at the moon
and 81 at Mercury, 243 at Venus and at the sun
itself 729, which is at the same time a square and
a cubic number ὃ ; and this is the reason why they
sometimes call the sun too a square and a cube.? In
this way these people increase the other numbers

notes 121, 122, and 129, to which add Plutarch, De Facie
925 a), an order which, if the purpose of it was to make the
sun midmost of the planets (cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 138,
16-18 [Hiller]; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 140, 8-9
[Wrobel]=p. 119, 16-18 [Waszink]; Philo Jud., Quis
Rerum Div. Heres 222-224=iii, p. 50, 9-19 [Wendland] ;
Proclus, Jn Platonis Timaewim iii, Ὁ. 62, 7-9 and 18-22
[Diehl]), is incompatible with a system in which the earth
and the counter-earth are planets.

¢ 729 =277=—93, See the next note im/ra.

4 Not the Pythagoreans to whom the original Philolaic
system is ascribed (see the note next but one supra). They
are said to have assigned the number seven to the sun as
being the seventh of the moving bodies counted inwards from
the fixed stars (Alexander, Metaph., pp. 38, 20-39, 3;
Asclepius, Metaph., Ὁ. 36, 5-11; A. Delatte, Btudes sur la
littérature pythagoricienne, p. 169 [Anecdota Arith. A 1,
lines 20-22]) ; and, had they applied the triplication from the
central fire as the unit that Plutarch here reports, they would
have had to associate the number 81 with the sun. The later
order with Mercury and Venus located between the moon
and the sun, however, makes the sun seventh from the
central fire; and in such triplication or multiplication by
any given ratio the seventh number is always both a square
and a cube (Philo Jud., De Opificio Mundi 92-94=i, pp. 31,
22-32, 12 [Cohn]; Anatolius, p. 35, 14-21 [Heiberg] and
partially in Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., pp. 54, 13-55, 1
[De Falco} ; cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 34, 16-35, 17 [Hiller]).

323

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1028) τοῖς τριπλασιασμοῖς,᾿ πολὺ τοῦ κατὰ λόγον οὗτοί
γε παραπαίοντες, εἴ TU τῶν γεωμετρικῶν ὄφελός
ἐστιν ἀποδείξεων, καὶ μακρῷ πιθανωτέρους παρα-
βαλεῖν" αὐτοῖς ἀποδεικνύοντες τοὺς ὁρμωμένους
ἐκεῖθεν, οὐδ᾽ αὐτοὺς παντάπασιν ἐξακριβοῦντας"
ἀλλὰ ὡς ἔγγιστα λέγοντας" ὅτι τῆς μὲν ἡλίου δια-
μέτρου πρὸς τὴν διάμετρον τῆς γῆς λόγος ἐστὶ
δωδεκαπλάσιος τῆς δὲ γῆς αὖ" πάλιν διαμέτρου
πρὸς τὴν σελήνης διάμετρον τριπλάσιος ὁ δὲ φαι-
νόμενος ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀπλανῶν ἀστέρων οὐκ ἐλάτ-
τονα τῆς διαμέτρου τῆς γῆς ἢ τριτημόριον ἔχει

D τὴν διάμετρον τῇ δὲ ὅλῃ σφαίρᾳ τῆς γῆς πρὸς τὴν
ὅλην σφαῖραν τῆς σελήνης ὡς ἑπτὰ καὶ εἴκοσι πρὸς
(ἕν) ἐστι͵, ἷ Φωσφόρου δὲ καὶ γῆς αἱ μὲν διάμετροι
τὸν διπλάσιον at δὲ σφαῖραι τὸν ὀκταπλάσιονΣ"

1 τριπλασμοῖς -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.
2 εἴ re -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine.
Ney ee τιν (παραβάλλειν -u), m, Escor. 72; παραλαβεῖν
-f, r; παραλαβεῖν αὐτοὶ -Wyttenbach; «ὡς» παραβαλεῖν

-B. Miiller (1873) : but cf. Lucian, Demosthenis Encomium
32 (iii, p. 376, 23-24 [J acobitz}) : «ον παιδιὰ παραβάλλειν τῷ
τούτου κρότῳ. ee

aT, Ὑ: ΕΞ δ Mteh. -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.

δε superscript over a -E1; λέγοντας -all other Mss.

6 EK, Bs; τῆς γῆς δ᾽ ad -all other mss., Aldine.

«ἕν -added by Wyttenbach ; πρόσεστι -Μ88. ; πρὸς (ἕν
λόγος» ἐστί -Β. Miiller (1873).

αἱ δὲ σφαῖραι τὸν ὀκταπλάσιον -omitted by r.

¢ They would be Mars: 2187, Jupiter: 6561, Saturn:
19,683, fixed stars: 59,049.

> These are approximately the figures of Pee ei (the
diameters of earth, moon, and sun are as 1:4: 124); ef.
Heath, Aristarchus of Samos, pp. 342 and 350

¢ That is to say not less than the diameter assigned to the
moon by Hipparchus (¢f. Boll, R.-H. vi [1909], col. 2411,
6-11). Contrary to the contention that all the fixed stars are

324

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1028

also by triplications, going far astray of what is
reasonable, if there is any use in geometrical demon-
strations, and proving that in comparison with them-
selves those who proceed from such demonstrations
are far more credible, though these are themselves
speaking not with absolute precision either but in
close approximations when they say that the ratio of
the sun’s diameter to the diameter of the earth is
twelve to one and of the earth’s diameter on the
other hand to the moon’s diameter is three to one ὃ
and that what appears to be the smallest of the
fixed stars has a diameter not less than a third part
of the diameter of the earth ὁ and that for the whole
sphere of the earth to the whole sphere of the moon
the ratio is as twenty-seven to (one) ὁ and that the
diameters of Venus and of the earth have the ratio
of two to one ὁ and their spheres the ratio of eight to

larger than the earth (e.g. Cleomedes, De Motu Circulari 1,
xi, 58 and τι, iii, 97 =pp. 106, 2-8 and 176, 11-24 [Ziegler] ;
Proclus, Jn Platonis Rem Publicam ii, p. 218, 5-13 [Kroll])
Philoponus (Meteor., Ὁ. 15, 18-23) in support of Aristotle
(Meteorology 339 Ὁ 7-9; cf. Areius Didymus, Hpitomes
Frag. Phys. 8 [Dox. Graeci, Ὁ. 450, 10-11]) cites unnamed
astronomers (possibly from Arrian, cf. zbid., p. 15, 13) to
the effect that the earth is not smaller than all the fixed stars.

tae. 2: 15 (ef. Euclid, Elements xii, Prop.’18).. “850
Hipparchus as reported by Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 197, 9-12
(Hiller) and Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 161, 18-22
(Wrobel) =p. 143, 5-8 (Waszink).

¢ According to Cleomedes, De Motu Circulari τι, iii, 96
(p. 174, 25-27 [Ziegler]) the diameter of Venus is one-sixth
that of the sun; it would then be to the earth’s diameter as
two to one if, as Plutarch has just said (1028 c supra), the
sun’s diameter is to the earth’s as twelve to one. According
to Ptolemy Hipparchus said- that the apparent diameter of
Venus is about a tenth that of the sun (B. R. Goldstein, “ἡ The
Arabic Version of Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses,” Trans-

325

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1028) ἔ ἔχουσι λόγον, τὸ δὲ διάστημα τῆς ἐκλειπτικῆς
σκιᾶς τῆς" διαμέτρου τῆς σελήνης τριπλάσιον, ὃ ὃ δ᾽
ἐκτρέπεται πλάτος ἡ σελήνη τοῦ διὰ μέσου" τῶν
ζῳδίων" ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα δωδεκάμοιρον. αἱ δὲ πρὸς
ἥλιον" σχέσεις αὐτῆς ἐν τριγώνοις καὶ τετραγώνοις
ἀποστήμασι διχοτόμους καὶ ἀμφικύρτους σχημα-
τισμοὺς λαμβάνουσιν' ἐξ δὲ ζῴδια διελθοῦσα τὴν"
πανσέληνον ὥσπερ τινὰ συμφωνίαν ἐν ἑξατόνῳ"

EK διὰ πασῶν ἀποδίδωσι. τοῦ δὲ ἡλίου περὶ τὰς
τροπὰς ἐλάχιστα καὶ μέγιστα περὶ τὴν ἰσημερίανΣ"
ἔχοντος κινήματα, δι᾿ ὧν ἀφαιρεῖ τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ

1 τοῦ -f.

2 rot διὰ μέσου (or διὰ μέσων) ~Turnebus ; τῆς διαμέτρου
-Ει, Β ; τοῦ διαμέτρου -all other mss., Aldine.

3 ζῳδίων -E, B, e, us ζώων -f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine.

‘EB; SSG ἀμ -all other atss. ιἐ Aldine.

5 ἥλιον “Bs ἡλίου (with ον superscript over ov and acute
accent superscript over ἡ) -Εἰ : ἡλίου -all other mss., Aldine.

6 τὸν -U.

7 K,m,r; ἐξατόνῳ -B, f; ἀξατόνῳ -e, u, Escor. 72 (with
€ superscript over a).

8 Kk, Β ; περὶ τῆς ἰσημερίας -all other mss., Aldine.

actions of the American Philos. Soc., N.S. lvii, 4 satiny
p. 8, col. 1 sub finenr).

α re 25 tae.

> Cf. Plutarch, De Facie 923 B and my note ad loc.
(L.C.L. xii, Ὁ. 57, note d).

ο Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 194, 8-13 and p. 135, 14-15
(Hiller) with Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 157, 14-15
(Wrobel)=p. 117, 8-9 (Waszink); Geminus, Mlementa
Astronomiae xii, 21 with v, 53 (pp. 142, 25-144, 1 and p. 62,
8-9 [Manitius]) ; Martianus Capella, viii, 867. The devia-
tion to either side of the ecliptic is given as five degrees by
Ptolemy, Syntawis v, 12 (i, p. 401, 10-15 [Heiberg )) and as
five and a half degrees by Proclus, Hypot yposis iv, 2 (pp. 86,
24-88, 1 {Manitius]). For ὁ διὰ μέσου (instead of the more

326

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1028

one 4 and that the extent of the shadow eclipsing the
moon is triple her diameter ? but that the breadth of
the moon’s deviation to one side or the other of the
circle through the middle of the zodiacal signs is
twelve degrees of latitude.* Her positions relative
to the sun in trine and quartile aspects assume the
configurations of half and gibbous?; and, when she
has traversed six signs of the zodiac,’ she exhibits the
plenilune as it were a consonance consisting of the
six tones of an octave.f As the sun has his minimal
movement at the solstices and his maximal move-
ment at the equinox,’ of these movements by which

common ὁ διὰ μέσων) τῶν ζῳδίων cf. ‘Theon Smyrnaeus, p.
133, 21 and p. 135, 18 (Hiller) and Simplicius, De Caelo,
p. 494, 27-28.

ὦ Cf. Pliny, .V.Z/. ii, 80 (“ itague in quadrato solis dividua
est, in triquetro scminani ambitur orbe, inpletur autem: in
adverso ...’’) and Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam ii,
p. 44, 18-22 (Kroll). For the terminology cf. Geminus,
Elementa Asironomiae ii, 1-19 (pp. 18, 16-26, 2 [ Manitius]) ;
Ptolemy, J'etrabiblos 1, xiv, 1 (pp. 35, 20-36, 4 [ Boll-Boer]) ;
and A. Bouché-Leclercq, L’astrologie grecque (Paris, 1899),
pp. 165-172.

¢ i.e. when she is in opposition, ὅταν κατὰ διάμετρον γένηται
τῷ ἡλίῳ... (Geminus, op. cit., ix, 9=p. 126, 24-26 [Mani-
tius Ji

f "" . Censorinus, De Die Natali xiii, 5 (p. 24, 2-4
{[Hultsch]): “*. . . tonos esse sex, in quibus sit dia pason
symphonia,”’ where the six tones are not as here, however,
the six signs of the zodiac through which the moon passes
from conjunction to opposition. For this correlation of the
plenilune with the octave cf. rather Ptolemy, Harmonica,
p. 108, 13-18 and p. 109, 4-6 (Diiring) and A. Boeckh,
Gesammelte Kleine Schriften iii (Leipzig, 1866), p. 173, n. 3.

g ΟἿ, Cleomedes, De Motu Circulari 1, vi, 28 and 31-32
(p. 52, 13-20; pp. 56, 27-58, 1; and p. 58, 13-15 [Ziegler}).
On this and the other errors in this sentence of Plutarch’s
cf. O. Neugebauer, A.J.P., Ixiii (1942), pp. 458-459.

327

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1028) τῇ νυκτὶ προστίθησιν ἢ τοὐναντίον, οὗτος ὁ λόγος
ἐστίν: ἐν ταῖς, πρώταις ἡμέραις A’ μετὰ τὰς" χει-
μερινὰς, τροπὰς τῇ ἡμέρᾳ προστίθησι τὸ ἕκτον τῆς
ὑπεροχῆς ἣν ἡ μεγίστη νὺξ πρὸς τὴν βραχυτάτην
ἡμέραν" ἐποίει" ταῖς" δ᾽ ἐφεξῆς Nn’ τὸ τρίτον τὸ δὲ
ἥμισυ ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἄχρι τῆς ἰσημερίας, ἐν ἐξαπλα-
σίοις καὶ τριπλασίοις διαστήμασι τοῦ χρόνου τὴν
ἀνωμαλίαν ἐπανισῶν. Χαλδαῖοι δὲ λέγουσι τὸ ἔαρ

F ἐν τῷ διὰ τεσσάρων γίγνεσθαι πρὸς τὸ μετόπωρον
ἐν δὲ τῷ διὰ πέντε πρὸς τὸν χειμῶνα πρὸς δὲ τὸ
θέρος ἐν τῷ διὰ πασῶν. εἰ δ᾽ ὀρθῶς ὁ ὁ ᾿ὐριπίδης
διορίζεται θέρους τέσσαρας μῆνας καὶ χειμῶνος

ἴσους
/ 3 >? , 2 ’ὔ “ ’ 9»
φίλης T ὀπώρας διπτύχους Hpos T ἴσους
1 ἐν <yap> ταῖς -Wyttenbach.
2 τὰς -Stephanus; yap-Mss. 3 ἡμέραν -omitted by B.
4 éproet -B. ἘΞ, rais'-f, m, &; τὰς -all other mss., Aldine.
6 B. Miiller (1873); ἐπανισοῦντος -Mss.
« A sixth, a third, and a half of the excess of the longest
night over the shortest day if added to the shortest day =
the longest day, 1.6. the day at the summer solstice and not
that at the equinox. Plutarch’s fractions should have been
a twelfth, a sixth, and a fourth as in Cleomedes, De Motu
Circulari 1, vi, 27-28 (pp. 50, 15-52, 2 [Ziegler]) and
Martianus Capella, viii, 878.

δ 2,6. the total increment of the second thirty days ($+ 3)
is threefold and the total increment of the third (3+ 3 3+ 4) is
sixfold the first (ὁ ). For the expression compare τὴν τῆς
τύχης ἀνωμαλίαν ἐπανισοῦν (De Fraterno Amore 484. Ὁ).

¢ So also Aristides Quintilianus, De Afuwsica iii, 19, who
says (p. 119, 15-18 [Winnington-Ingram]), however, that
these ratios of the seasons were ascribed to Pythagoras and
that (ibid., p. 119, 10-15) they follow from assignment of the
numbers eight (that of air) to spring, four (that of fire) to
summer, six (that of earth) to autumn, and twelve (that of
water) to winter. The correlation of these numbers with the

328

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1028

he subtracts from the day and adds to the night or
contrariwise this is the ratio: in the first thirty days
after the winter solstice he adds to the day a sixth of
the difference by which the longest night exceeded
the shortest day and in the next thirty a third and
in the rest until the equinox a half,* thus equalizing
the disparity of the time in sixfold and threefold
intervals.2 The Chaldaeans assert that spring turns
out to be related to autumn in the ratio of the fourth
and to winter in that of the fifth and to summer in
that of the octave.* If Euripides is right. however,
in distinguishing four months of summer and an equal
number of winter

And of dear autumn twain and twain of spring,?@

seasons, however, depends upon the correlation in the
Timaeus of the four regular solids with air, fire, earth, and
water (ibid., pp. 118, 29-119, 9); and it results, moreover,
in making three to two, the fifth, the ratio of winter to spring
rather than that of spring to winter as professed and re-
quired. According to O. Neugebauer (4.J.P., Ixiii [1942],
pp. 455-458) the ratios were derived from twelve, nine, eight,
and six, taken to be the number of days by which spring,
summer, winter, and autumn respectively exceed a common
measure (really eleven, nine, seven, and six respectively ac-
cording to Callippus in the Eudoxt Ars Astronomica, col.
xxlii=p. 25 [Blass]), so that originally the ratios of these
increments or deviations were: spring to autumn (not to
summer) as twelve to six (the octave), to summer as twelve
to nine (the fourth), and to winter as twelve to eight (the
fifth). This is rejected by Burkert (Weisheit und Wissen-
schaft, p. 333, ἢ. 110), who seems to think that the parallel
passage in Aristides Quintilianus makes it wrong to seek the
origin of the ratios in any astronomical calculations and that
the speculation was obviously meant to show in the numbers
the opposition of summer and winter, though in fact neither
the ratios nor the numbers in Aristides Quintilianus do this.
4 Euripides, frag. 990 (Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag.’,

p. 679).
329

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1028) ἐν τῷ διὰ πασῶν at ὧραι μεταβάλλουσιν. ἔνιοι δὲ
a \ ~

γῇ μὲν τὴν' TOO προσλαμβανομένου" χώραν ἀποδι-
) Vive \ \ ap ee \ \
ὄντες σελήνῃ de τὴν ὑπάτην Στίλβωνα δὲ Kat
1029 Φωσφόρον ἐν diatovois* {παρυπάταις)" καὶ λιχα-
νοῖς κινοῦντες αὐτὸν τὸν ἥλιον ὡς μέσην συνέχειν
τὸ διὰ πασῶν ἀξιοῦσιν ἀπέχοντα τῆς μὲν γῆς τὸ

διὰ πέντε τῆς δὲ τῶν ἀπλανῶν τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων.

3 3 a ᾽ὔ \ \ “ 7

82. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὔτε τούτων τὸ κομψὸν ἅπτεταί τι-

3 7 a5 2. ἝΞ a / ἌΣ ἊΝ aA
vos ἀληθείας οὔτ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι παντάπασι τοῦ ἀκριβοῦς

1 γῇ μὲν ἐν τῇ - (three dots superscript over ἐν and ὃν
superscript over τῇ -1i1), e, u, ἢν m, r, Escor. 723 γῆν μὲν
τὴν -B.

2 Krom λαμβανομένου (f. 226 recto) to the end of the
essay a new hand in e.

3 σελήνην -Y.

4 ἐν rots διατόνοις (διαγόνοις -1} -f, m, r.

5 «παρυπάταις»Σ -B. Mitiler (1873) after Maurcmmates,
who wished to substitute it either for λιχανοῖς or for διατόνοις.

¢ With what follows cf. especially Macerpta Neapolitana
Q4 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 418, 14-419, 7 [Jan})=
Inscriptio Canobi (Ptolemaei Opera ii, p. 154, 1-10 [Hei-
berg]) but with the better alignment of Halma, Hypothéses et
Epoques des Planétes de Οὐ. Ptolémée ... (Paris, 1820), pp.
61-62; also Alexander of Ephesus in Theon Sinyrnaeus,
pp. 140, 5-141, 4 (Hiller) and Censorinus, De Die Natali
xiii, 3-5 (pp. 23, 129-24, 6 [Hultsch]) with W. Burkert,
Philologus, cv (1961), pp. 32-43 and B. L. van der Waerden,
R.-#. Supplement x (1965), cols. 857, 65-859, 35.

» The note added to the scale below the hypaté (the top-
most string that gives the lowest tone: see supra note e on
Plat. Quaest. 1007 x), as Plutarch himself says in 1029 5
infra (see page 335, note ὁ).

¢ For the variation in the oblique cases of Στίλβων as of
Φαίνων (1029 B infra) see De Facie 925 a and 941 c with my
note ad loc. (L.C.L. xii, p. 184, note a).

4 Cf. [Plutarch], De Musica 1134 τ (. . . τὴν διάτονον
mapuTarny ... τὴν διάτονον λιχανόν) and the note of Kinarson
and De Lacy ad loc. (L.C.L. xiv, p. 375, n.d). W. Burkert

330

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1028-1029

it is in the ratio of an octave that the seasons change.
Some people,* moreover, assigning to earth the
position of the proslambanomenos ὃ and to the moon
the hypaté and having Mercury ὁ and Venus move
in the positions of the diatonic ¢parhypaté) and
lichanos ὦ maintain that the sun himself as mesé
holds the octave together,’ being at the remove of a
fifth from the earth and of a fourth from the sphere
of the fixed stars.f

32. But the cleverness of these people is not con-
cerned with any truth, and those others do not aim
at accuracy at all.’ To those, however, who think

(Philologus, ον [1961], p. 33, n. 2) thinks that the illogical
ev διατόνοις καὶ λιχανοῖς was in Plutarch’s source. The ex-
pression used for Mercury and Venus may be a reference
to the fact that the parhypaté and the lichanos are ‘“ moy-
able ’’ notes: contrast τοὺς ἑστῶτας (1029 B infra) and cf.
Cleonides, Introductio 6 and Gaudentius, Harmonica Intro-
ductio 17 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 189, 20-190, 5 and
p. 345, 4-12 {[Jan]); Aristides Quintilianus, De Musica i, 6
(p. 9, 25-26 [Winnington-Ingram]).

¢ For the sun as midmost of the seven planets—and so the
paradigm of the musical mesé (Nicomachus, Harmonices
Man. 3= Musici Scriptores Graeci, Ὁ. 242, 2-7 [Jan])—
συνάγοντα καὶ συνδέοντα τὰς ef ἑκάτερα αὐτοῦ τριάδας cf.
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 62, 7-9 (Diehl); and
for the mesé itself as σύνδεσμος cf. [Aristotle], Problemata
919 a 25-26.

* Cf. Censorinus, De Die Natali xiii, 4-5 (p. 23, 18-20 and
pp. 23, 27-24, 2 [Hultsch]) and Alexander of Ephesus in
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 140, 8 and 15 with Theon’s criticism
ibid., p. 141, 16-19 (Hiller).

5 Cf. οὐδ᾽ αὐτοὺς παντάπασιν ἐξακριβοῦντας (1028 c supra),
which applies a fortiori to the preceding πολλοί who “ carry
over into this context Pythagorean notions .. . going far
astray of what is reasonable .. .”’ (1028 s—c). It is to these
that the ἐκεῖνοι here refers and not, as Hubert supposes, to
the “ Chaldaeans ”’ of 1028 Ἐ-Ὲ supra.

331

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

» 4 9 > 9 a ~ a a
(1029) ἔχονται. οἷς δ᾽ οὖν οὐ δοκεῖ ταῦτα τῆς τοῦ Πλά-
3 “A /, 3 A a =
Twvos ἀπηρτῆσθαι διανοίας ἐκεῖνα κομιδῇ φανεῖται

-- ~ ’ / \ ,

τῶν μουσικῶν λόγων ἔχεσθαι, TO πέντε τετραχόρ-
» ~ ’ Α / A
δων᾽ ὄντων" τῶν ὑπάτων" Kal μέσων καὶ συνὴμ-

’

μένων καὶ διεζευγμένων᾽ καὶ ὑπερβολαίων ἐν πέντε

, / ° a
διαστήμασι τετάχθαι τοὺς 'πλάνητας, ὧν TO μέν
> i: 3 ‘ hg >s> ΦᾺ ‘ s ¢€ ,

Β ἐστι τὸ ἀπὸ σελήνης ἐφ᾽ ἥλιον καὶ τοὺς ὁμοδρόμους
ey 7 , A / td aes: | \ 4
ἡλίῳ, UTiABwva καὶ Φωσφόρον, ἕτερον TO ἀπὸ τού-

ee, a a δ , , “Sar ‘
των ἐπὶ τὸν “Apeos® [[υρόεντα, τρίτον δὲ τὸ μεταξὺ

, 6 \ / 22) ρα . Αἴ ι ,
τούτου" καὶ Φαέθοντος, εἶθ᾽ ἑξῆς τὸ ἐπὶ Daivwva,
καὶ πέμπτον ἤδη τὸ ἀπὸ τούτου πρὸς τὴν ἀπλανῆ
σφαῖραν: ὥστε τοὺς opilovtas φθόγγους τὰ τετρά-
χορδα τὸν τῶν πλανωμένων λόγον ἔχειν ἀστέρων.

1 EK, B, f, m, r, Escor. 72 (three dots over yo), Aldine;
tetpad....vac. 1... py (@ and x erased) -e; vrerpa... vac. 2

DO: a MOR a wae’,

2 ὄντας -Β,

3 τῶν ὑπάτων -Basil.; τοῦ ὑπατῶν -E (ὑπάτων -Ε)1), B;
τοῦ ὑπόστων τα, Escor. 72 (with ὧν superscript over od) ;
τοῦ ὑπόστον -U; τῶν ὑπόστων -f, τη, τ, Aldine.

‘ , διαζευγμένων -r; διεξαγμένων -e, τι.

5 B, f, m, r3 aépos -E, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.

8 τούτων -F.

¢ Of. De Defectu Orac. 430 a; Nicomachus, Harmonices
Man. 11, 5-6 and Cleonides, Introductio 10 (Musici Scrip-
tores Graeci, pp. 259, 13-260, 4 and p. 201, 8-13 [Jan]).

> In De Defectu Orac. 430 a it is not the intervals of the
planets that are said to be five but their ‘ periods ”’ (ef.
[Plutarch], De Placitis 892 8= Dow. Graeci, p. 363 A 9-15).

° So in De Defectu Orac. 430 a (.. . “HAiov καὶ Φωσφόρου
καὶ Στίλβωνος ὁμοδρομούντων). In [Plato], Epinomis 987 B 4-5
Mercury is said to be On08popos with the sun and Venus ;
and ‘‘ Timaeus Locrus ”’ uses διὰ τὸ ὁμοδρομῆν adiw of Venus
(97 a) just after (96 ©) having called Mercury and Venus
ἰσόδρομοι ἀελίῳ (ef. [Plutarch], De Placitis 889 c and 892 B=
Dox. Graeci, p. 346 a 4-6 and p. 363 a 11-13; [Aristotle],

332

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1029

these notions not remote from Plato's meaning the
following will appear to be closely connected with
the musical ratios, that, there being five tetrachords
—those of the lowest and middle and conjunct and
disjunct and highest—,? the planets have been
arranged in five intervals,? of which one is that from
moon to sun and those that keep pace with the sun,
Mercury and Venus,¢ second that from these to the
fiery planet of Mars,? and third that between this
and Jupiter, and then next that extending to
Saturn,? and finally fifth that from this to the sphere
of fixed stars,’ so that the sounds bounding the
tetrachords correspond to the planets.’ Further-

De Mundo 399 a 8-9; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 136, 20-21
[Hiller]). Plato himself, however, in Timaeus 38 p 2-3 says
that the revolution of Venus and of Mercury is τάχει icddpo-
μον ἡλίῳ (cf. 36 D 5: τάχει τρεῖς μὲν ὁμοίως) : cf. ἰσοταχεῖς
in Philo Jud., De Cherubim 22 (i, p. 175, 11-13 [Cohn]) and
Philoponus, De Aeternitate Mundi vi, 24 (p. 199, 10-15
[Rabe]). For the form Στίλβωνα page 330, note c supra.

4 Cf. Plutarch, frag. ix, 5 (p. 46, 3 [Bernardakis])=frag.
157, 80 (Sandbach); [Plutarch], De Placitis, 889 p= Doz.
Graeci, pp. 344 a 20-345 a 1; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 130,
24 (Hiller).

¢ For the form Φαίνωνα see page 330, note ὁ supra.

t This reduction of the planetary intervals to five involves
not only the mistake of making the orbits of the sun, Mer-
cury, and Venus one and the same but also the inconsistency
of counting the interval from Saturn to the fixed stars while
at the same time omitting the interval from earth to moon
(cf. Helmer, De An. Proc., p. 59).

¢ The five tetrachords, not being all consecutive, are
bounded by seven different notes (cf. Boethius, De Institu-
tione Musica iv, xii=pp. 334, 23-335, 6 [Friedlein]) ; but in
the preceding scheme the five consecutive intervals must be
bounded by six terms, one of which, since three of the seven
planets constitute a single boundary, cannot be a planet and
is in fact the sphere of the fixed stars.

333

(1029)

ap

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

” ἢ \ ee Δ δ. Ὁ 1 \ ,
ETL τοίνυν τοὺς παλαιοὺς ἰσμεν UTratas’ μὲν δύο
ἬΝ: ΣΌΝ ἐσὺ δα τος «ΕΝ ;
τρεῖς O€ νῆτας play’ ὃε μέσην καὶ μίαν παραμέσην

/ a 3 a , ’ ,
τιθεμένους, ware? τοῖς πλάνησιν ἰσαρίθμους εἶναι
A e a ¢ A ’ὔ ὃ ’
τοὺς ἑστῶτας. οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι τὸν προσλαμβανό-
͵ , ee ed 5» Saas \ \
μενον, τόνῳ Stapepovta*® τῆς ὑπάτης, ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ
΄ A \ Ὁ f \ \ an ?
τάξαντες τὸ μὲν ὅλον σύστημα δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐ-
͵ ΄“΄ A ~ \ \ ’ >]
ποίησαν τῶν δὲ συμφωνιῶν τὴν κατὰ φύσιν οὐκ
> , , \ y \ 4 ‘4 ,
ἐτήρησαν τάξιν' τὸ γὰρ διὰ πέντε πρότερον γίγνε-
~ 4 / Ἐπ τ \ A ~ e / 6
ται τοῦ διὰ τεσσάρων, ἐπὶ τὸ βαρὺ τῇ ὑπάτῃ
τόνου προσληφθέντος. ὁ δὲ !λάτων δῆλός ἐστιν
ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ προσλαμβάνων" λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῇ ΙΠολι-
’ a > \ A ee , $978
τείᾳ τῶν ὀκτὼ σφαιρῶν ἑκάστην περιφέρειν [εἶτ᾽]
ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ Σειρῆναδ βεβηκυῖαν, adew δὲ πάσας ἕνα
ὑπάτους -Τ.
νήτεις καὶ μίαν -Ὑ.
ἐν δὲ -U.
διαφέροντος -U. '
τῆς <émdtwv> ὑπάτης -Ἡ. Weil et Th. Reinach, P?u-
tarque: De la musique (Paris, 1900), p. Ixix, n. 4.
6 i, B, f, m, r3 ἀπάτῃ -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine.
7 Τὸ (τόνω -E} with ὦ remade to ov), B, e, τι, Escor. 72 ;
τοῦ τόνου -f, τὰ, r, Aldine.
8 Deleted by Hubert ; τὴν -Stephanus,

9. FE, B; σειρῆναι -e, αὶ, Escor. 72, Aldine: σειρῆναν -f, in ;
σειρῆνας -F.

1
2
3
4

5

« j.e., apart from the proslambanomenos, the seven fixed
notes that bound the five tetrachords: cf. Boethius, De
Institutione Musica 1, xiii (pp. 335, 8-337, 15 [Friedlein]) ;
Cleonides, /utroductio 4 and Gaudentius, //armonica Intro-
3384:

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1029

more, we know that the ancients reckon two notes
called hypaté and three nété but one mesé and one
paramesé, so that the stable notes are equal in
number with the planets. The moderns, however,
by placing an additional note, the proslambano-
menos, lower in the scale than the hypaté,® from
which it differs by a tone, made the whole scale a
double octave ὁ but did not preserve the natural
order of the consonances, for the fifth turns out to be
prior to the fourth when to the hypaté a tone has
been added lower in the seale.¢ It is obvious, how-
ever, that Plato makes the addition to the higher end
of the scale, for in the Republic he says ¢ that each of
the eight spheres’ carries around in its revolution a
Siren standing on it and they all sing emitting a single

ductio 17 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 185, 16-25 and p. 345,
1-4 [Jan]).

δ That is the hypaté of the lowest tetrachord, as would
be made explicit by the supplement of Weil-Reinach, τῆς
ζὑπάτων» ὑπάτης : but τῇ ὑπάτῃ τόνου προσληφθέντος at the
end of the sentence shows that Plutarch wrote simply τῆς
ὑπάτης here just as Nicomachus wrote τὴν ὑπάτην for τὴν
ὑπάτων ὑπάτην (cf. Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 258, 2-3

an

¢ Cf. Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 11, 4 (Musici
Scriptores Graeci, p. 258, 2-11 (Jan]) and Bocthius, De
Institutione Musica τ, xx (pp. 211, 21-212, 7 [Friedlein]}).

@ i.¢e., the scale ought to begin with a tetrachord not in-
creased to a fifth by the tone of the proslambanomenos, for
the fourth is “‘ naturally prior’ to the fifth: cf. Nicomachus,
Harmonices Man. 7, 9, and 12 (Musici Scriptores Graeci,
p. 249, 2-19; p. 252, 4-15; and p. 262, 7-11 [Jan]) and
Arithmetica Introductio τι, xxvi, 1 (p. 134, 5-15 [Hoche]) ;
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 66, 12-14 (Hiller).

¢ Republic 617 B 4-7.

f Plato said not “‘spheres”’ but ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν κύκλων. .. ἐφ᾽
ἑκάστου. See supra 1028 a with note e and Plat. Quaest.
1007 a with note d there.

335

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1029) τόνον' ἱείσας" ἐκ δὲ πασῶν κεράννυσθαι μίαν ἁρμο-
νίαν. αὗται δ᾽ ἀνιέμεναι τὰ θεῖα εἴρουσι καὶ
καταδουσιδ τῆς ἱερᾶς περιόδου" καὶ χορείας" ὀκτά-
χορδον" ἐμμέλειαν: ὀκτὼ γὰρ ἦσαν καὶ οἵ πρῶτοι

D τῶν διπλασίων καὶ τριπλασίων ὅροι λόγων, ἕκα-
τέρᾳ προσαριθμουμένης μερίδι τῆς μονάδος. οἱ δὲ
πρεσβύτεροι Μούσας παρέδωκαν καὶ ἡμῖν ἐννέα,

1 ἕνα «ἑκάστην» τόνον ~Hubert.

2 Ἐς; ἴσας -B; ἐείσας -all other μ88., Aldine.
8 Stephanus ; εἴρουσαι καὶ κατάδουσαι -MSS.
4 E, B; προόδου -all other mss., Aldine.
5 E, B; ywpias re ἃ, Escor. 72, Aldine; χορίαις -f, m, r
8 χὴν ὀκτάχορδον -f, m, r.
7 MSS. (μούσαν -u); καὶ Μούσας παρέδωκαν ἡμῖν .-Pohlenz.

--

¢ Each emits one tone (Republic 617 8B 6); but even
Proclus, who elsewhere states this clearly (In Platonis Rem
Publicam ii, pp. 236, 29-237, 1 and p. 238, 15 [Kroll}), says
κινεῖ δὲ τὰς Σειρῆνας ἄδειν μίαν φωνὴν ἱείσας ἕνα τόνον...
(ibid., i, p. 69, 10-12 [Kroll}). Hubert’s supplement, there-
fore, ‘would be a case of improving rather than restoring
what Plutarch wrote.

> Plutarch must assume that the Siren of the moon emits
hypaté of the lowest tetrachord and that of Saturn nété of
the highest so that the additional eighth, that of the fixed
stars, would be a tone higher in pitch than the latter. Plato
does not say, however, what tone is emitted by which Siren
and nothing that he does say would prevent the eighth tone
from being understood as an addition to the lower end of the
scale, whether the tone highest in pitch or lowest is as-
sociated with the moon, for which two opposed theories cf.
Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 3 and Excerpta 3 (Musici
Scriptores Graeci, pp. 241, 18-242, 11 and pp. 271, 18-273,
24 [Jan]}).

¢ 4.e. ‘‘ relaxed’ in the musical sense, referring to ΜΙ
gentle sound of the harmony (of. De Genio Socratis 590 c-p
.. . τὴν πραότητα τῆς φωνῆς ἐκείνης ἐκ πασῶν ἐῤμοβλ ΑΥ ΤΑΣ
and so differentiating the tones of these Sirens from the shrill
song, Avyup?) ἀοιδή of Homer’s (Odyssey xii, 44 and 183; ο΄.

336

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1029

tone? and all are blended into a single concord.
These Sirens free from strain ὁ entwining things
divine ὁ chant a harmony of eight notes over the
sacred circuit of the dance,’ for eight was also the
number of the primary terms of the double and
triple ratios, the unit being counted along with each
of the two classes.f And we too have got from our
elders the tradition that there are nine Muses,9

Apollonius Rhodius, iv, 892-893 and 914), λιγυρή being
ὀξεῖα and σύντονος, the opposite of ἀνιεμένη (cf. [Aristotle],
De Audibilibus 804 a 21-29). Proclus is at pains to distinguish
these two groups of Sirens and in fact maintains that ac-
cording to Plato there are three different kinds (Jn Platonis
Rem Publicam ii, pp. 238, 21-239, 8 [Kroll] and Jn Platonis
Cratylum, Ὁ. 88, 14-26 [Pasquali]).

4 Etymologizing Σειρήν, as is shown by Quaest. Conviv.
745 F(... Σειρῆνας ὀνομάζειν, εἰρούσας τὰ θεῖα καὶ λεγούσας ἐν
“Αἰιδου. . .), apparently as if from σεῖα (Laconian for θεῖα)
cipew. Etym. Magnum 710, 19-20 (Gaisford) has παρὰ τὸ
εἴρω, TO λέγω, εἰρήν: καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ σ, σειρήν. ἢ παρὰ TO
εἴρω τὸ συμπλέκω, the latter from Herodian Technicus, Reli-
quiae ii, 1, p. 579, 13-14 (Lenz)..

¢ Cf. Philo Jud., De Mutatione Nominum 72 (iii, p. 169,
27-28 [Wendland]) and De Specialibus Legibus ii, 151 (v,
p. 122, 13-15 [Cohn]); [Plato], Epinomis 982 § 4-6 from
Plato, Timaeus 40 c 3-4.

7 For the unit as common to both even numbers and odd
being counted twice and so giving eight terms (1, 2, 4, 8
and 1, 3, 9, 27) see supra 1018 r—1019 a with note 6 there,
but for the same reason being taken only once and so giving
seven terms (1, 2, 4, 8, 3, 9, 27) see 1027 © supra. With
of πρῶτοι τῶν... ὅροι λόγων here cf. τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἀριθμῶν

. . ἐδέησε μείζονας ὅρους λαβεῖν ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς λόγοις (1019 B
supra with note d there).

9 ** We too...,” for this was not the universal belief:
cf. Quaest. Conviv. 744 c—745 B (where at the end Plutarch
identifies the three Fates of Republic 617 c with the three
Delphian Muses) and 7462; M. Mayer, R.-£. xvi/1 (1933),
cols. 687, 50-691, 66.

337

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1029) Tas μὲν ὀκτὼ καθάπερ ὁ Πλάτων περὶ τὰ οὐράνια
τὴν δ᾽ ἐνάτην τὰ περίγεια κηλεῖν' ἀνακαλουμένην
καὶ καθιστᾶσαν ἐ ἐκ πλάνης καὶ διαφορᾶς ἀνωμαλίαν
καὶ ταραχὴν ἐχούσας."

33. Σκοπεῖτε" δὲ μὴ τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἄγει καὶ
τὰ οὐράνια ταῖς περὶ αὑτὴν" ἐμμελείαις καὶ κινή-
σεσιν ἡ ψυχὴ φρονιμωτάτη καὶ δικαιοτάτη γεγο-
νυῖα, “γέγονε δὲ τοιαύτη τοῖς καθ᾽ ἁρμονίαν λόγοις,

3
ὧν εἰκόνες μὲν ὑπάρχουσιν εἰς τὰ σώματα ἐν τοῖς
E ὁρατοῖς καὶ ὁρωμένοις μέρεσι. τοῦ κόσμου καὶ σώ-
μασιν ἡ δὲ πρώτη καὶ κυριωτάτη δύναμις ἀοράτως"
ἐγκέκραται τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ παρέχει σύμφωνον αὐτὴν

1 καλεῖν -Τ΄
e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine; ἐχούσης -E, B.
i, By ts σκοπεῖται -e, u, f, m, Escor. 79,
Bernardakis ; αὐτὴν -Μμ858. 5 MSS.3 ἀσώματα -Stephanus.
8 ἀοράτως -r, f (in margin), m (in margin); ὁρατοὺς -ut
(ov remade to w) ; ὁρατῶς -all other Mss,
7 Stephanus ; 3 ἑαυτὴν -MSS.; ἑαυτῇ -Hubert; <adri>
αὐτὴν -A. E. Taylor (Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus,
p. 157, n. 1).

= ὦ t

* This tacit identification of the Sirens of Republic 617

B 4-7 with the Muses Ammonius in Quaest. Conviv. 745 F
_ is made to assert explicitly after Plutarch in his own person
had denied it (ἐδέα. 745 c). It is later denied by Proclus too
(In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, p. 237, 16-25 with ii, p. 68,
5-16 [Kroll]), who ascribes it to of παλαιοί (In Platonis
Timaeum ii, p. 208, 9-14 and p. 210, 25-28 [Diehl]). It is
explicit in Macrobius, Jn Somnium Scipionis uy, iii, 1-2
(=Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum . . . Fragmenta, pp. 59,
11-60, 10. [Sodano]) and implicit in Porphyry, Περὶ ἀγαλ-
μάτων, frag. 8 (J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre, p. 12*, 14-15)
= Eusebius, Praep. Evang. iii, 11, 24 (i, p. 139, 19-20
[Mras]) and Vita Pythagorae 31 (pp. 33, 19-34, 2 [Nauck])
and in the citation of Amelius by Joannes Lydus, De
Mensibus iv, 85 (p. 135, 3-7 [Wiinsch]). The Muses are
not mentioned in the two interpretations of the Sirens given

338

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1029

eight of them, just as Plato says, being occupied with
things celestial? and the ninth with those about the
earth ὃ to cast a spell upon them recalling them from
vagrancy and discord and settling their capricious-
ness and confusion.

33. Consider, however, whether the heavens and
the heavenly bodies are not guided by the soul with
her own harmonious motions ὁ when she has become
most provident and most just and whether she has
not become such by reason of the concordant ratios,4
semblances of which are incorporated in the parts of
the universe that are visible and seen, that is in
bodies, but the primary and fundamental property of
which has been invisibly blended in the soul ὁ and

by Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 146, 9-147, 6 (Hiller) or in that
given by Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 167, 1-7 (Wrobel)
ΞΡ. 148, 6-11 (Waszink).
’ So Ammonius i in Quaest. Conviv. 746 A (pia δὲ τὸν μεταξὺ
γῆς καὶ σελήνης τόπον ἐπισκοποῦσα καὶ περιπολοῦσα .. .) ; Cf.
τε ὑποσελήνιος σφαῖρα in Porphyry, Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων, frag. 8
πὰ in the last note swpra). Others resolved the difficulty
of identifying the nine Muses with Plato’s eight Sirens by
making the ninth the concord produced by the other eight
(Macrobius, Jn Somnium Scipionis τι, iii, 1-2).

¢ Cf. Porphyry in Proclus, Jn Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 214,
11 (=Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum ... Fragmenta, Ὁ. 60,
18-19 [Sodano]) and Proclus himself, 262d. ii, p. 268, 7-8 and
p. 279, 10-12 (Diehl); and Simplicius, De Anima, p. 40,
37-38. With the reasons given by Plutarch here for rejecting
the astronomical interpretations considered in chaps. 31-32
ἀκ ie cf. especially Proclus, ibid. ii, Ρ. 212, 28-31 (Diehl).

* See Plat. Quaest. 1003 a: ἐπεὶ δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ νοῦ μετέλαβε καὶ
ἁρμονίας καὶ γενομένη διὰ συμφωνίας ἔμφρων. ..

“ See 1024 c supra (διαδιδοῦσαν ἐνταῦθα τὰς ἀκ δεν gas):
cf. Porphyry in Proclus, ln Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 214, 15-16
and pp. 214, 31-215, 8 (=Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum
. . . Fragmenta, Ὁ. 60, 22-23 and p. 61, 13-15 [Sodano})
and Proclus himself, ib¢d., p. 295, 2-9 (Diehl).

339

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

\ θ , 2 an “~ / \ /
(1029) kat πειθήνιον, ἀεὶ τῷ κρατίστῳ Kat θειοτάτῳ
“ τ ¢ /
μέρει τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ὁμονοούντων. παραλα-
βὼν γὰρ ὁ δημιουργὸς ἀταξίαν' καὶ πλημμέλειαν
ἐν ταῖς κινήσεσι τῆς ἀναρμόστου καὶ ἀνοήτου ψυ-
χῆς διαφερομένης πρὸς ἑαυτὴν τὰ μὲν διώρισε καὶ
διέστησε τὰ δὲ συνήγαγε πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ συν-
ἔταξεν ἁ ἁρμονίαις καὶ ἀριθμοῖς χρησάμενος, οἷς καὶ
τὰ κωφότατα" σώματα, λίθοι καὶ ξύλα καὶ φλοιοὶ
φυτῶν καὶ θηρίων ὀστᾶ" καὶ πυτίαι, συγκεραν-
Ε νύμενα καὶ συναρμοττόμενα θαυμαστὰς μὲν ἀγαλ-
μάτων ὄψεις θαυμαστὰς δὲ παρέχει φαρμάκων καὶ
ὀργάνων δυνάμεις. ἡἧ καὶ Ζήνων ὁ Κιτιεὺς ἐπὶ
θέαν αὐλητῶν παρεκάλει τὰ μειράκια καταμανθά-
νειν οἵαν" κέρατα καὶ ξύλα καὶ κάλαμοι καὶ ὀστᾶ,ἷ
λόγου μετέχοντα καὶ συμφωνίας, φωνὴν ἀφίησι.
τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀριθμῷ πάντα ἐπεοικέναι" κατὰ τὴν
ἢ υϑαγορικὴν ἀπόφανσιν"" λόγου δεῖται: τὸ δὲ πᾶσιν,
1080 οἷς" ἐκ διαφορᾶς καὶ ἀνομοιότητος ἐγγέγονε κοι-
νωνία τις πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ συμφωνία, ταύτης
αἰτίαν εἶναι μετριότητα καὶ τάξιν, ἀριθμοῦ καὶ
1 Xylander; κατ᾽ ἀταξίαν -E, B, 6, τὶ ; κατ᾽ ἀξίαν (ἀξίαν
corrected to ἀταξίαν in margin -f1, τα) -f, m, r, Escor. 72,
Aldine.
2 Wyttenbach ; κουφότατα -Μ88.
3 φοιοὶ -f, m, r.
4 Emperius (Op. Phalol., p. 340); εἰσὶ (εἰσὶν -e, ἃ) -Mss.
> πιτύαι -F, B, ul °
§ οἷα -B.
7 gaa (?}-e€3 ὅσα -u, Aldine.
8 τὸ -E, B; τῷ -all other mss., Aldine.
9 ἐπιοικέναι -e, u2, Escor. 72.
10 EK, Β, f, m3; ἀπόφασιν -e, Ὁ, r, Escor. 72, Aldine.
11 Xylander ; πᾶσι θεοῖς -Mss.

« Cf. De Genio Socratis 592 B-c.
340

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1029-1030

renders her concordant and docile,“ all her other
parts always agreeing with the part that is best and
most divine.? For the artificer, having taken over ¢
a jangling disorder in the motions of the discordant
and stupid soul which was at odds with herself,4
distinguished and separated some parts and brought
others together with one another and organized
them, using concords and numbers ὁ by which when
blended and fitted together even the most senseless
bodies, stones and logs and the bark of plants and
bones and beestings of animals, provide statuary of
wonderful appearance and medicines and _ instru-
ments of wonderful potency. Wherefore it was that
Zeno of Citium 7 summoned the lads to a performance
of pipers to observe what a sound is produced by bits
of horn and wood and reed and bone when they par-
take of ratio and consonance. For, while it requires
reasoned argument to maintain with the Pythagorean
assertion that all things are like unto number,’ the
fact that for all things in which out of difference and
dissimilitude there has come to be some union and
consonance with one another the cause is regularity
and order consequent upon their participation in

>’ Cf. Plato, Republic 442 c 10-Ὁ 1 and 432 a 6-9.

¢ See note f on 1014 ὁ supra.

@ See supra 1014 8 (page 183, note c) and 1016 c with note f
and the references there.

¢ See supra page 175 note ¢ and 1015 & with note i.

7 Cf. De Virtute Morali 443 a=S.V.F. i, frag. 299.

¢ Cf. Sextus, Adv. Math. iv, 2 and vii, 94 and 109;
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 99, 16 (Hiller); Themistius, De Anz-
ma, Ὁ. 11, 27 (Xenocrates, frag. 39 [Heinze]); A. Nauck,
Tamblichi De Vita Pythagorica Liber, pp. 234-235, to
which add Anatolius in [Hero Alexandrinus], Def. 138, 9
(iv, p. 166, 16-18 [Heiberg]); Burkert, Weisheit und Wis-
senschaft, pp. 64-65.

341

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

ἔξ a
(1030) ἁρμονίας μετασχοῦσιν, οὐδὲ τοὺς ποιητὰς λέληθεν
\ \ ~ lo
ἄρθμια μὲν τὰ φίλα καὶ προσηνῆ καλοῦντας avap-
atous’ δὲ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους," ὡς
ἀναρμοστίαν τὴν διαφορὰν οὖσαν. ὁ δὲ τῷ Ilw-
δάρῳ ποιήσας τὸ ἐπικήδειον
» S ? SUPy [7 \ U > A
ἄρμενος ἦν ξείνοισιν ἀνὴρ ὅδε καὶ φίλος ἀστοῖς
᾽ , avs s A > yo" , e
εὐαρμοστίαν δῆλός ἐστι THY ἀρετὴν" ἡγούμενος, ὥς
που καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ [Πίνδαρος τοῦ θεοῦ φησιν ἐπα-
a 4 ‘ the Re ee , Sagi δι ,
κοῦσαι" μουσικὰν ὀρθὰν" ἐπιδεικνυμένου" tov Καδ-
[ἢ ᾽ὔ 7 ’ὔ ’
μον. οἵ τε πάλαι θεολόγοι, πρεσβύτατοι φιλοσόφων
Β ὄντες, ὄργανα μουσικὰ θεῶν ἐνεχείριζον ἀγάλμα-
σιν, οὐχ ὡς λύραν που <Kpovovary’ καὶ αὐλοῦσιν
ἀλλ᾽" οὐδὲν ἔργον οἰόμενοι θεῶν οἷον ἁρμονίαν

a

1 Xylander ; ἀναρείους -K, e, u, Escor. 72: ἐναρείους -b ;
ἀνάρθμια -f, m3; ἀνάρμιθμια τῇ.

2 τὰ ἐχθρὰ καὶ τὰ πολέμια -f, Mm, Ὑ΄

3 ἁρμονίαν -Τ.

4 B. Miiller (1873); ἐπακούοντος -Μ88. : ἐπακούοντα J. G.
Schneider ; ἐπακούειν -Wyttenbach.

5 μουσικὰν ὀρθὰν -Heyne (Pindari Carmina iii, pars i
[Géttingen, 1798], pp. 51-52); οὐυκανορέαν -E 3 οὐκανορέαν
(οὐκ dvopéav -u, f, m, r) -all other ass.

6 Heyne (loc. cit.) : ἐπιδεικνύμενοι -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72 ;
ἐπιδεικνύμενος -f, m, r, Aldine.

ἕ «κρούουσι» -supplied by Mauroinmates ; ποὺ - - - vac.

.. καὶ -E, B; που καὶ (without lacuna) -all other wuss. ἷ
Aldine : ; λυρίζουσιν καὶ -Wyttenbach.

8 αὐλὸν ow... Vac. 9 -f, τὰ : vac. 4-r... ἀλλὰ -f, τὰ, τ:
αὐλὸν ἀλλὰ -Aldine.

a a i - τ.

Cf. Stobaeus, Hcl. i, Prooem., 2 (p. 16, 1-13 [Wachs-
muth]) and Syrianus, Metaph., pp. 103, 29-104, 2.

> Anth. Pal. vii, 35; cf. A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The
Greek Anthology : Hellenistic Epigrams ii(Cambridge, 1965),
p. 395.

342

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1030

number and concord, this has not gone unnoticed
even by the poets who call friendly and agreeable
things befitting and enemies and foes unbefitting on
the assumption that dissension is unfittingness.¢ He
who composed the elegy for Pindar

This was a man who was fitted for guests and friendly to
townsmen ὃ

is clearly of the belief that virtue is fittingness, as
Pindar too says somewhere himself that Cadmus
hearkened to the god displaying music fit.¢ The
theologians of ancient times, who were the oldest of
philosophers,? put musical instruments into the hands
of the statues of the gods, with the thought, I pre-
sume, not that they <do play) the lyre and the pipe
but that no work is so like that of gods as concord

ὁ Pindar, frag. 32 (Bergk, Schroeder, Snell) =22 (‘Turyn)
=13 (Bowra); cf. De Pythiae Oraculis 397 a and Aelius
Aristides, ii, p. 296, 4-5 (Jebb)=ii, p. 383 (Dindorf). The
quotation is relevant to the present context only if Plutarch
identified the ὀρθ- of ὀρθάν with the ἀρθ- of ἄρθμιον, which
he could the more easily do since in Aeolic and his own
Boeotian op and po often correspond to the ap and pa of
common Greek (cf. R. Meister, Die griechischen Dialekte
... i [Géttingen, 1882], p. 34, n. 2; pp. 48-49; p. 216 and
I’. Bechtel, Die griechischen Dialekte i [Berlin, 1921], p. 25;
p. 147; pp. 242-243); and I have therefore translated
ὀρθάν by “ fit’? (ef. English “ fit”"=‘‘ a strain of music,”
cognate with “ fit ’=** juncture ’’).

4 Cf. De Iside 360 pv, where Plato, Pythagoras, Xenocrates,
and Chrysippus are said to have followed τοῖς πάλαι θεολόγοις
for their notion of δαίμονες, and 369 B, where 4 παμπάλαιος
δόξα is said to have come down to poets and philosophers
ex θεολόγων καὶ νομοθετῶν : in De Defectu Orac. 436 dD oi
σφόδρα παλαιοὶ θεολόγοι Kai ποιηταί are contrasted to of νεώτεροι
... καὶ φυσικοὶ προσαγορευόμενοι, and to the former is ascribed
a line of Orpheus, frag. B 6 (D.-K.), for which see De Comm.
Not. 1074 κε infra with note a there.

343

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1030) εἶναι καὶ συμφωνίαν. ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ τοὺς ἐπιτρίτους
καὶ ἡμιολίους καὶ διπλασίους λόγους ζητῶν ἐ ἐν τῷ
ζυγῷ τῆς λύρας καὶ τῇ χελώνῃ καὶ τοῖς κολλάβοις
γελοῖός ἐστι (δεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἀμέλει καὶ ταῦτα συμ-
μέτρως γεγονέναι πρὸς ἄλληλα μήκεσι καὶ πάχεσι
τὴν δὲ ἁρμονίαν ἐκείνην ἐπὶ τῶν φθόγγων θεωρεῖν)
οὕτως εἰκὸς μέν ἐστι καὶ τὰ σώματα τῶν ἀστέρων
καὶ τὰ διαστήματα τῶν κύκλων καὶ τὰ τάχη τῶν

ἢ περιφορῶν ὥσπερ ὄργανα ἐν τεταγμένοις (λόγοις )*
ἔχειν ἐμμέτρως πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, εἰ
καὶ τὸ ποσὸν ἡμᾶς τοῦ μέτρου" διαπέφευγε, τῶν
μέντοι λόγων ἐκείνων οἷς ὁ δημιουργὸς ἐχρήσατο
καὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἔργον ἡγεῖσθαι τὴν αὐτῆς τῆς
ψυχῆς ἐμμέλειαν" καὶ ἁρμονίαν πρὸς αὑτήν," ὑφ᾽
ἧς" καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐγγενομένη μυρίων ἀγαθῶν ἐμ-
TET ANKE καὶ τὰ περὶ γῆν ὥραις καὶ μεταβολαῖς
μέτρον ἐχούσαις ἄριστα καὶ κάλλιστα" πρός τε
γένεσιν καὶ σωτηρίαν τῶν γιγνομένων διακεκό-
σμήκεν.

1 <\dyous> -added by Wyttenbach.
af in, Ps peri wall other Mss.
3 ἐπιμέλειαν -f1, m1, r, Aldine.
* E, B, Τρ τὴ αὐτὴν -e, U; +. E'scor. 72, Aldine.

5 FE, Bs; ἐφ᾽ ols -all other MSS., Alditie:
5 μάλιστα -U.

α Cf. Cornutus, xiv and xxxii (p. 17, 11-16 and pp. 67,
17-68, 5 [Lang]) and Sallustius, De Diis et Mundo vi (p. 12,
8-12 [Nock]). Other such symbolic interpretations of the
statues of gods and their attributes are given by Plutarch
in De Iside 381 v-r, De Pythiae Oraculis 400 c and 402 a-s,
An Seni Respublica Gerenda Sit 797 F; cf. Porphyry,

344:

GENERATION OF THE SOUL, 1030

and consonance. Just as one is ridiculous, then,
who looks for the sesquitertian and sesquialteran and
duple ratios in the yoke and the shell and the pegs of
the lyre (for, while of course these too must have
been made proportionate to one another in length
and thickness, yet it is in the sounds that that
concord is to be observed), so is it reasonable to
believe that, while the bodies of the stars and the
intervals of the circles and the velocities of the
revolutions are like instruments commensurate in
fixed <ratios) with one another and with the whole
though the quantity of the measurement has eluded
us,? nevertheless the product of those ratios and
numbers used by the artificer® is the soul’s own
harmony and concord with herself,¢ whereby she has
filled the heaven, into which she has come, with
countless goods and has arrayed the terrestrial
regions with seasons and measured changes in the
best and fairest way for the generation and preserva-
tion of things that come to be.

Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων, frags. 3, 7, and 8 (J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre,
pp. G*, 4-1*, 4; p. 9*, 10-21; p.,12*, 5-11; and_p. 17*,
10-18) and Macrobius, Sat. 1, xvii, 13 and xix, 2 and 8
with R. Pfeiffer, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes, XV (1952), pp. 20-32 on Callimachus, frag. 114
(Pfeiffer).

>’ So much and only so much, then, is conceded to those
referred to in 1028 a-B supra, καίτοι τινὲς μὲν ἐν τοῖς τάχεσι

. τινὲς δὲ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς ἀποστήμασιν ἔνιοι δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μεγέ-
σεσε....

¢ See page 341, note e and the references there.

@ See 1028 a supra: ... ὡς μάλιστα δὴ τῇ συστάσει τῆς
ψυχῆς τοῦ λόγου τούτου προσήκοντος.

345

κῷ

5 δε 7 cop tnay
py a a ἐπ « i } ᾿
ao ‘- Baie ἘΣ Ἰ ἶ bf
Cee τς ΨΨ ἢ εὐ, ΘΑ ΝΣ ρον
ιυ a } i. sie ἌΡ
i

‘ δ 5 .
ὶ 7 ys a. ἢ tat be
, B25)" t/t ae ee 0} 7 ie ΔΑ | af Ame
- i a 4 εὐὐὔὐ ¢ uw? O08 et LA Γ > ds δὰ aly μεν
Ags ἐν pe. ΕΙΣ ΕΟ ee Pee Ler IDEs:
, " eee on γα. ee tte oe 3 νὰ tp
¥ ae, ee a md ὙΦ ‘wry =) ᾿ ΤΑ͂Σ ὸ
ν με » ᾿ e Ji ΓΙ." Ἴ
roi Sy Sie ΚΗ ΒΙΌΣ
ὦ Amd lie Sth ὙΠ ͵ a rd bi ‘>
4 2 4 ,
κέ er τς pede δ alee
ὖ > ωξ t {3 ἢ “Ὁ YER ΠΣ, 4
ΠΠΛΑΦΧῪ Ἱ i “ει: ἢ 1 γ:
“᾽ a " ἄν ,
COG ET. iis ἈΓΠΓ ΤΟΘΟΣΗ
I f Ε Γ᾿
= “y ™) swe ΠΝ, ait are sve
> ΔΝ AL “Se \ ere me fy
ΥγῪ ΑΒ ὁ ᾿ “Ὁ yw OARS ἃ
; hoe we ξ
iat - ,
as

_
‘oh g
i

Si) OF 5

ae ee
ν᾽ τ ‘

Vd
»
<
=

r * ΄
δ hea «
a4 ' ὟΥ s a Fike a
ΟΝ 7 4
. a ¢
A vital
4 “-- τὰ ΑΝ
ἂν
οἱ
Ἵ ἐν Τὺ δὺ
Ἢ ‘hoy Aad 1b if ces) Ὁ}
> J
4 a ‘ J
¥ r ie. τὶ "
*i Meda s ἴ Va wad 4
᾿ = a Owe ©
} . : te SCYA ΤΟΥ
ἧς
᾿ Ν᾿
'
i γ
es A
=
ς , ν
'
a
j

;
Ἢ
Π v4
eae 4 ia “ ΌΣ
Ν 4

wie:

‘ed
1 1
οἱ ~~

Γ

cy

EPITOME OF THE
REALISE, ΟΝ LAE
GENERATION OF THE

SOUL IN THE TIMAEUS”

(COMPENDIUM LIBRI DE ANIMAE
PROCREATIONE IN TIMAEO)

INTRODUCTION

Tus Epitome or ‘‘ Compendium,” which is No. 42 in
the Planudean corpus, is not listed in the Catalogue
of Lamprias. It is rather an excerpt than an epitome
or compendium in the proper sense, for it is merely a
copy of chaps. 22-25 (1023 B—1025 B) of the treatise
with two short paragraphs by way of introduction.
In these the “ epitomizer ”’ refers to the author of
the treatise in the third person, though not by name,
and in summarizing his doctrine ineptly ascribes to
him a theory of evil that is vehemently rejected in the
treatise. The excerpt itself shows in several places
that the “ epitomizer”’ did not clearly understand
what he was transcribing ; and, though he made one
intelligent substitution in his text, he also introduced
a supplement that reveals his misunderstanding of a
Greek verbal form. 7

It is practically certain that the ms. of the treatise
from which the excerpt was taken was not one from
which any of the extant mss. of the treatise was
copied, for in five cases words absent from all the
latter are present in all mss. of the Epitome. The
text here printed is based upon a, A, f, y, Εἰ, B, and

@ 1031 c (ἕκαστα), 1031 ἢ (πάλιν), 1031 E (καὶ), 1032 ἢ
(πλανήτων), 1032 £ (τὴν). See besides these the correct forms
in all the mss. of the Epitome: ἀεικίνητος (1031 a), ἄκρα τὸ
(1032 £), τοῦ ταὐτοῦ (1032 F).

348

EPITOME OF GEN. OF SOUL

n, all of which have been collated from photostats.
Their readings are fully reported in the apparatus ;
and so are those of Laurent. Conv. Soppr. 180,
which was collated as a sample of the other mss.
containing the Epitome (cf. Hubert-Drexler, Morala
vi/1, pp. xviI-xvi1). For the few readings cited of
Vat. Reg. 80 I have depended upon the Variae
Lectiones of Cruser-Xylander and the reports of
Hubert-Drexler and upon the latter for those of
Marc. Append. IV, 1 and Urb. 100(t). There are
few decisive indications in this work of the relation
among the mss. collated ; but in several cases B and
n are in agreement against all the others, and it is
quite clear that the scribe of B did not copy the
Epitome from E.4

6 See 1030 κε (ἀναλογίας καὶ ; ἀναλογικὰς -B, n), 1031 a
(περιλαμβάνων ; παραλαμβάνων -B, n), 1031 E (νοερὸν ἡ φύσις ;
νοερὸν ὥσπερ ἡ φύσις -B, ἢ), 1032 a (πως omitted by B,n). In
all these cases the Aldine is in disagreement with B and n.

849

10390 Ὁ

Ὁ

ENMITOMH TOY ΠΕΡῚ ΤῊΣ EN ΤΩΙ
ΤΙΜΑΙΩΙ ΨΥΧΟΓΟΝΙΑΣ

ς λ ~ > “~ ἣν / / >
O περὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ ψυχογονίας ém-
’ ἣν “ 7 \ A

γεγραμμένος λόγος ὅσα ]]λάτωνι καὶ τοῖς Π]λατω-
νικοῖς πεφιλοτίμηται ἀπαγγέλλει εἰσάγει δὲ καὶ
γεωμετρικάς τινας ἀναλογίας καὶ ὁμοιότητας" πρὸς
τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς, ὡς οἴεται, θεωρίαν συντεινούσας
αὐτῷ καὶ δὴ καὶ μουσικὰ καὶ ἀριθμητικὰ θεωρή-
ματα.

2, Λέγει δὲ τὴν ὕλην ᾿διαμορφωθῆναι ὑπὸ τῆς
ψυχῆς καὶ δίδωσι μὲν τῷ παντὶ ψυχὴν δίδωσι δὲ
καὶ ἑκάστῳ ζῴῳ τὴν διοικοῦσαν αὐτό," καὶ πῇ μὲν
ἀγένητον" εἰσάγει ταύτην πῇ δὲ γενέσει δουλεύου-

37 A 4 Ὁ \ e A “- ’ὔ \ ~
σαν ἀΐδιον δὲ τὴν ὕλην καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου διὰ τῆς
ψυχῆς μορφωθῆναι καὶ τὴν κακίαν δὲ βλάστημα
τῆς ὕλης γεγονέναι, ἵνα μή, φησί, τὸ θεῖον αἴτιον

F τῶν κακῶν νομισθείη.

Ὅτι οἱ περὶ τὸν ἸΪοσειδώνιον οὐ μακρὰν τῆς

1 τοῦ περὶ -omitted by β.
" ἀναλογικὰς ὁμοιότητας -L, 1).
3 αὐτῷ -γ, Laurent. C. S. 180.
4 a; ἀγέννητον -all other mss., Aldine.

¢ The epitomizer passes without notice from the treatise
to its author.

> See supra 1016 ὁ and 1017 a-z.

¢ See supra 1014 Β and in the final chapter 1029 p-» and
1030 c, with which οὐ Plat. Quaest. 1003 a.

350

——— αφρὸν

EPITOME OF THE TREATISE,
“ON THE GENERATION OF THE
SOUL IN THE TIMAEUS”

1. THE treatise entitled On the Generation of the Soul
in the Timaeus reports what all the contentions of
Plato and the Platonists have been and also intro-
duces certain geometrical proportions and similarities
pertaining, as he thinks,“ to his theory of the soul
and particularly musical and arithmetical specula-
tions.

2. He asserts, moreover, that matter was shaped
by soul and ascribes a soul to the universe but
ascribes to each living being also the one that
manages it; and he represents this as being in one
way ungenerated and in another subject to genera-
tion ὃ but matter as everlasting and given shape by
the divinity through the agency of the soul® and evil
as being in origin an excrescence of matter,’ in
order, he says, that the divinity might not be thought
responsible for evil things.

8. He says that Posidonius and his followers ὁ did

¢ As B. Miller observed (Hermes, iv [1870], p. 396, n. 1)
this is the very opposite to Plutarch’s contention in the
treatise (see 1015 c-E supra).

¢ =F 14] Ὁ (Edelstein-Kidd). Save for the differences in-
dicated in the notes the rest of the Epitome is an exact copy
of De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1023 »n —1025 B supra.

351

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1030) ὕλης ἀπέστησαν τὴν ψυχὴν' ἀλλὰ δεξάμενοι τὴν
τῶν περάτων οὐσίαν περὶ τὰ σώματα λέγεσθαι
μεριστὴν καὶ ταῦτα τῷ νοητῷ μίξαντες ἀπεφή-
ναντο τὴν ψυχὴν ἰδέαν εἶναι τοῦ πάντῃ διαστατοῦ

1031 κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν συνεστῶσαν ἁρμονίαν περιέχοντα: τά
τε γὰρ μαθηματικὰ τῶν πρώτων νοητῶν μεταξὺ
καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν τετάχθαι, τῆς τε ψυχῆς, τῷ
νοητῷ" τὸ ἀΐδιον καὶ τῷ αἰσθητικῷ" τὸ παθητικὸν
ἐχούσης, προσῆκον ἐν μέσῳ τὴν οὐσίαν ὑπάρχειν.
ἔλαθε γὰρ καὶ τούτους ὁ θεὸς τοῖς τῶν σωμάτων
πέρασιν ὕστερον, ἀ ἀπειργασμένης ἤδη τῆς ψυχῆς,
χρώμενος ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς ὕλης διαμόρφωσιν,. τὸ σκεδα-
στὸν αὐτῆς καὶ ἀσύνδετον ὁρίζων καὶ περιλαμ-
βάνων" ταῖς ἐκ τῶν τριγώνων συναρμοττομένων
ἐπιφανείαις. ἀτοπώτερον δὲ τὸ τὴν ψυχὴν ἰδέαν
ποιεῖν" ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀεικίνητος ἡ δ᾽ ἀκίνητος, καὶ ἡ
μὲν ἀμιγὴς πρὸς τὸ αἰσθητὸν ἡ δὲ τῷ σώματι συν-

Β ειργμένη ἢ πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὃ θεὸς τῆς μὲν ἰδέας
ὡς παραδείγματος γέγονε μιμητὴς τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς
ὥσπερ ἀποτελέσματος δημιουργός. ὅτι δ᾽ οὐδ᾽

1 85. 2 τὴν ψυχὴν -omitted 1028 B supra.
2 μαθητικὰ -a, A (with μα Superscript over yr), Aldine.
$ MSS. ; τῶν νοητῶν -1023 B supra.
4 Mss. ; τῶν αἰσθητῶν -1023 B-c supra (E, B; τῶν αἰσθη-
τικῶν -4}} other mss.).
5 παραλαμβάνων -B, n.
6 διὰ -Laurent. C. S. 180.

7 συνειργομένη -B, n, Laurent. C. 5. 180; συνηργμένη - Vat.
Reg. 80.

α The epitomizer misunderstood the second aorist ἀπέ-
στησαν (1025. B supra) and, supposing it to be transitive, added
the object, τὴν ψυχήν, that he thought was to be “ supplied.”
The Bienak was correctly translated by Turnebus and
Amyot; but Xylander misunderstood it just as the epito-
mizer had done, and his mistake has been repeated by

352

EPITOME OF GEN. OF SOUL, 1030-1031

not remove the soul far from matter but, having
taken divisible in the case of bodies to mean the
being of the limits and having mixed these with the
intelligible, they declared the soul to be the idea of
what is everyway extended, herself constituted
according to number that embraces concord, for
(they said) the mathematicals have been ranked
between the primary intelligibles and the per-
ceptibles and it is an appropriate thing for the soul
likewise, possessing as she does everlastingness with
the intelligible and passivity with the perceptive,® to
have her being in the middle. In fact these people
too failed to notice that only later, after the soul has
already been produced, does god use the limits of the
bodies for the shaping of matter by bounding and
circumscribing its dispersiveness and incoherence
with the surfaces made of the triangles fitted to-
gether. What is more absurd, however, is to make
the soul an idea, for the former is perpetually in
motion but the latter is immobile and the latter
cannot mix with the perceptible but the former has
been coupled with body ; and, besides, god’s relation
to the idea is that of imitator to pattern but his
relation to the soul is that of artificer to finished
product. As to number, however, it has been stated

Helmer (De An. Proc., p. 16, n. 21), Thévenaz (L’ Ame du
Monde, p. 26), Merlan (Platonism to Neoplatonism, p. 35),
and Marie Laffranque (Poseidonios d’ Apamée [Paris, 1964],
p. 431).

> τῷ νοητῷ . . - τῷ αἰσθητικῷ is a mistake whether of the
epitomizer’s own or of his original for τῶν νοητῶν. . . τῶν
αἰσθητῶν (1023 B supra, where, however, all mss. except E
oak have αἰσθητικῶν). It is uncertain what the epitomizer
thought the text as he wrote it could mean—if indeed he
thought about it at all.

353

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

3 { ξ / 4 tn° Sf f a A
(1031) ἀριθμὸν ὁ Πλάτων τὴν οὐσίαν τίθεται τῆς ψυχῆς
ϑ \ , | taller ως. lo /
ἀλλὰ ταττομένην ὑπ᾽ ἀριθμοῦ, προείρηται.
\ 4. 9 , , 1 Fe ob ‘
4. Ipos δ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις᾽ κοινόν ἐστι τὸ
μήτε τοῖς πέρασι μήτε τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς μηδὲν ἴχνος
> 4 > , “a 4 e \ > Ἁ ¢
ἐνυπάρχειν ἐκείνης τῆς δυνάμεως ἡ TO αἰσθητὸν ἡ
ψυχὴ πέφυκε κρίνειν. νοῦν μὲν γὰρ αὐτῇ καὶ
νοητὸν" ἡ τῆς νοητῆς μέθεξις ἀρχῆς ἐμπεποίηκε"
, A \ , A A A \ 4
δόξας δὲ καὶ πίστεις Kal TO φανταστικὸν καὶ TO
tere § A \ \ A , ΔΊΑ
παθητικὸν" ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ τὸ σῶμα ποιοτήτων [ὃ]
> ” > ΄ OA a 5 S9Rmes
οὐκ ἄν τις ἐκ μονάδων οὐδὲ γραμμῶν" οὐδ᾽ ἐπι-
~ ς “κι / 9 , ‘\ \ 3
C φανειῶν ἁπλῶς νοήσειεν ἐγγινόμενον. καὶ μὴν οὐ
μόνον at τῶν θνητῶν ψυχαὶ γνωστικὴν τοῦ ai-
Pare, ” 9 \ ΝΣ a , 6
σθητοῦ δύναμιν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ THY τοῦ κύκλου
φησὶν ἀνακυκλουμένην αὐτὴν πρὸς ἑαυτήν, ὅταν
ΕΝ) \ ” / 7 9 7 \
οὐσίαν σκεδαστὴν ἔχοντός Tivos’ ἐφάπτηται Kal
“ ἜΧΕ: λ 4 8 , 5 ‘ , 9 ¢
ὅταν ἀμέριστον, λέγῃ" κινουμένην διὰ πάσης" éav-

11 244 s νι «Ὁ 12 Ἃ e
TAUVUTOV 7) και OTOU αν ETEPOV,

A ef * 10
TNS, OTW ἂν TL
MSS. 3; ἀμφοτέρους τούτους -1023 D supra.

mss. here and 1023 p supra; see the note there on καὶ
«τὸ» νοητὸν.

3 παθητὸν -a, B, n.

4 [6] -omitted by t (Urb. 100) and deleted by Diibner ;
see 1023 Ὁ supra: ποιοτήτων, τοῦτ᾽.

5 οὐδ᾽ ἐκ γραμμῶν -B.

§ τοῦ κόσμου -Leonicus from 1023 p supra.

7 χινὰ -y.

8 λέγη -MSS. (y Over erasure in a); λέγει -Aldine; λέγειν
-Diibner from 1023 © supra (where EK, B, ἢ, m, r also have
λέγῃ).

9 δὲ ἁπάσης -Laurent. C. S. 180}.

354

1
2

EPITOME OF GEN. OF SOUL, 1031

above ὁ that Plato regards the substance of soul not
as number either but as being ordered by number.
4, Besides both of these, moreover, there is
equally ὃ the argument that neither in limits nor in
numbers is there any trace of that faculty with which
the soul naturally forms judgments of what is
perceptible. Intelligence and intelligibility have
been produced in her by participation in the in-
telligible principle ; but opinions and beliefs, that is
to say what is imaginative and impressionable by the
qualities in body, one could not conceive [. . .] as
arising in her simply from units or from lines or
surfaces. Now, not only do the souls of mortal
beings have a faculty that is cognizant of the per-
ceptible ; but he says ὁ that the soul of the circle 4
also as she is revolving upon herself, whenever she
touches anything that has being either dispersed or
indivisible, is moved throughout herself and states ¢
of anything’s being the same and different with

* Thoughtlessly copied from 1023 pn, for neither the pas-
sage to which it refers (1013 c-p) nor its content has been
mentioned in this “‘ epitome.”

ὃ Plutarch’s κοινόν was made meaningless when the epito-
mizer mistook ἀμφοτέρους τούτους for ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις ἣν τῇ
1023 p supra: “. .. against both of these in common...”’).

¢ Plato, Timaeus 87 A 5-B 3.

ἃ This is the epitomizer’s mistake for ‘‘ the soul of the
universe ’’ (1023 p supra).

¢ I translate as if the correct λέγειν stood here (see 1023 &
supra), for with λέγῃ, which the epitomizer certainly wrote,
it is impossible to construe the sentence at all.

— ------ ----- --

10 μ88. : ὅτῳ τ᾽ ἂν -1023 Ε supra.

1 ὡς -Beorr. ; τις -all other MSS., Aldine.

12 # καὶ ὅτου -B°T-; 7 καὶ ὅτω -all other mss. (w over
erasure in a), Aldine.

355

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

/ \
(1031) πρὸς ὃ τι τε μάλιστα καὶ ὅπῃ Kal ὅπως συμβαίνει
καὶ τὰ γιγνόμενα πρὸς ἕκαστον ἕκαστα εἶναι καὶ

/ 3 / Ὁ“ Ἁ »“".
πάσχειν. ἐν τούτοις ἅμα καὶ τῶν δέκα κατηγο-
n , e \ 3) ~ A 3 A
ριῶν ποιούμενος ὑπογραφὴν ἔτι μᾶλλον τοῖς ἐφεξῆς
aA / δ
διασαφεῖ. “ιἷ λόγος ᾿᾿ γάρ φησιν “᾿ ἀληθὴς ὅταν μὲν
ΚΠ ΔΝ, ὁ \ ͵ 2 1 oe "Ξ , t
D περὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν γένηται καὶ ὁ τοῦ θατέρου κύκλος
) \ 3 3 ἊΝ 2 la >] ~ \ \
ὀρθὸς" ἰὼν εἰς πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν διαγ-
/ / \ ὔ , / 4
γείλῃ, δόξαι καὶ πίστεις γίγνονται βέβαιοι καὶ
3 A ω 8 > 7 \4 4 \ >
ἀληθεῖς: ὅταν δ᾽ αὖ πάλιν περὶ τὸ λογιστικὸν ἢ
καὶ ὁ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ κύκλος εὔτροχος ὧν αὐτὰ μηνύσῃ,
ἐπιστήμη ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀποτελεῖται" τούτω δ᾽ ἐν ᾧ
τῶν ὄντων ἐγγίγνεσθον, ἐάν ποτέ τις αὐτὸ ἄλλο
πλὴν ψυχὴν προσείπῃ, πᾶν μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ ἀληθὲς
Setar ’ a 5 oe \ \ 3 ι
ἐρεῖ. πόθεν οὖν ἔσχεν" ἡ ψυχὴ τὴν ἀντιληπτικὴν
τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ δοξαστικὴν ταύτην κίνησιν, ἐτέ-
“ “ A >
ραν τῆς νοητῆς" ἐκείνης καὶ τελευτώσης εἰς ἐπι-
> aA A ’ ~
στήμην, ἔργον εἰπεῖν μὴ θεμένους βεβαίως ὅτι viv
“- A A
οὐχ ἁπλῶς ψυχὴν ἀλλὰ κόσμου ψυχὴν συνίστησιν
1 καὶ -MSS.3 κατὰ -B°T- in margin; see 1023 © supra:
κατὰ τὰ γιγνόμενα (καταγινόμενα -MSS.).
2 γένοιτο -ἰ (Urb. 100), Laurent. 80, 53 γίγνηται -1023 Ἐ
supra. |
8: ὀρθῶς -a! ? (os over erasure), Vat. Reg. 80; see root.
in 1023 © supra.
4 mss., Aldine; δ᾽ αὖ περὶ (without πάλιν) -1023 ¥ supra
and Timaeus 37 c 1.
5 ἔσχεν -omitted by Laurent. C. 5. 180, Marc. Append.

IV, 1 (cf. Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, p. xviit).
6 mss., Aldine; νοητικῆς -Wyttenbach from 1023 Fr supra.

¢ From this point on the construction of the original is
radically altered by the erroneous καὶ τὰ γιγνόμενα which

356

EPITOME OF GEN. OF SOUL, 1031

regard to whatever it is so precisely the respect and
context and manner in which? even the things that
come to be happen to be or to have as attribute
either of these in relation te each. As in these
words he is simultaneously giving an outline of the
ten categories too, in those that follow he states the
case more clearly still, for he says®: “ Whenever
true discourse is concerning itself about the per-
ceptible and the circle of difference running aright
conveys the message through all its soul, there arise
opinions and beliefs steadfast and true ; but, when-
ever on the other hand again it is concerned about
the rational and the circle of sameness running
smoothly gives the information, knowledge is of
necessity produced; and, if anyone ever calls by
another name than soul that one of existing things in
which these two come to be, he will be speaking
anything but the truth.’’ Whence, then, did the
soul get this motion that can apprehend what is
perceptible and form opinions of it, a motion different
from that which is intelligible ὁ and issues in know-
ledge? It is difficult to say without steadfastly
maintaining that in the present passage ὦ he is con-
structing not soul in the absolute sense but the soul

the epitomizer wrote instead of κατὰ τὰ γιγνόμενα (see
1023 © supra). On the other hand, the ms. that he excerpted
must have contained the correct ἕκαστα (cf. Timaeus 37 B 2)
that is lacking in all our mss. of the treatise.

> Timaeus 37 B 3—c 5.

¢ The treatise here has “ intellective’ (1023 r supra:
vontixys), but the epitomizer probably wrote νοητῆς.

¢ This refers to neither of the two passages just mentioned
but to Timaeus 35 a 1-8 4, which is quoted at the beginning
of the treatise (1012 B-c supra) but has not been mentioned
in the Epitome at all.

357

(1081)

iD

1032

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

ἐξ ὑποκειμένης" THs TE κρείττονος οὐσίας καὶ ἀμε-
a “a

ρίστου καὶ τῆς χείρονος, ἣν περὶ" τὰ σώματα
μεριστὴν κέκληκεν, οὐχ ἑτέραν οὖσαν ἢ τὴν δοξα-
στικὴν καὶ φανταστικὴν καὶ συμπαθῆ" τῶν αἰσθη-
τῶν' κίνησιν, οὐ γενομένην ἀλλὰ ὑφεστῶσαν. ἀΐδιον
ὥσπερ ἡ ἑτέρα. τὸ γὰρ νοερὸν ἡ φύσις" ἔχουσα
καὶ τὸ δοξαστικὸν εἶχεν ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο μὲν ἀκίνητον
καὶ ἀπαθὲς καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀεὶ “μένουσαν ἱδρυμένον
οὐσίαν τοῦτο δὲ μεριστὸν καὶ πλανητόν, ἅτε δὴ
φερομένης καὶ σκεδαννυμένης ἐφαπτόμενον ὕλης.
οὔτε γὰρ τὸ αἰσθητὸν εἰλήχει τάξεως ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἄμορ-
gov καὶ ἀόριστον, ἢ τε περὶ τοῦτο τεταγμένη δύνα-
μες οὔτε δόξας ᾿ἐνάρθρους οὔτε κινήσεις ἁπάσας
ἔχουσα" τεταγμένας ἀλλὰ τὰς πολλὰς ἐνυπνιώδεις
καὶ παραφόρους καὶ ταραττούσας τὸ σωματοειδές,
ὅσα μὴ κατὰ τύχην τῷ βελτίονι περιέπιπτεν" ἐν
μέσῳ γὰρ ἦν ἀμφοῖν καὶ πρὸς ἀμφότερα συμπαθῆ
καὶ συγγενῆ φύσιν εἶχε, τῷ μὲν ᾿αἰσθητικῷ τῆς
ὕλης ἀντεχομένη τῷ δὲ κριτικῷ τῶν νοητῶν.

5. Οὕτω δέ πως" καὶ [ἰλάτων" διασαφεῖ τοῖς
5: τῷ {( a 2) , «( Ἁ “a 2 A 7
ὀνόμασιν" “ οὗτος ᾿᾿ γάρ φησι “ παρὰ τῆς ἐμῆς ψή-

1 55,9, Aldine ; ὑποκειμένων -1094. 4 supra.
παρὰ -"}. 3 συμπλοκὴ -Vat. Keg. 80.
MSS., Aldine ; : τῷ αἰσθητῷ -1024 a supra.
νοερὸν ὥσπερ ἡ φύσις -B, n.

δ᾽ arss., Aldine; εἶχε -W yttenbach ἔγοι 1024 Bw supra (B,
" ον margin}).

7 αἰσθητῶ -B.

8 πως —— by B.
® msS.; αὐτὸς -1024 B supra.

a ὦ NS

¢ Misled by τῆς... οὐσίας, which follows immediately,
the epitomizer may have misread an abbreviation of the final
syllable of ὑποκειμένων in the original (1024 4 supra). Both
entities, of course, were already available to the artificer.

358

EPITOME OF GEN. OF SOUL, 1031-1032

of the universe out of being that is already available,
the superior, that is to say indivisible, and the
inferior, which he has called divisible in the case of
bodies, this latter being none other than the opinion-
ative and imaginative motion sensitive of the per-
ceptibles,? not brought into being but having sub-
sisted everlastingly just like the former. For nature
possessing intellectuality possessed the opinionative
faculty also, the former, however, immobile and
impassive and settled about the being that always
remains fixed but the latter divisible and erratic
inasmuch as it was in contact with matter which was
in motion and dispersion. The fact is that the per-
ceptible had not got any portion of order but was
amorphous and indefinite ; and the faculty stationed
about this was one having ὁ neither articulate opinions
nor motions that were all orderly, but most of them
were dreamlike and deranged and were disturbing
corporeality save in so far as it would by chance en-
counter that which is the better, for it was inter-
mediate between the two and had a nature sensitive
and akin to both, with its perceptivity laying hold on
matter and with its discernment on the intelligibles.

5. In terms that go something like this Plato ὦ too
states the case clearly, for he says¢: “ Let this be

> This is the epitomizer’s error for “ὁ sensitive to what is
perceptible ”’ in the original.

¢ I attempt in this way to render ἔχουσα, a mistake for
εἶχε that was probably in the epitomizer’s original, for it is
common to all the mss. here and most of those of the treatise
(see 1024 B supra).

4 Here the epitomizer not unintelligently substituted the
name of Plato for “‘ he... himself ”’ of his original.

* Timaeus 52 Ὁ 2-4.

359

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

\ >

(1032) φου λογισθεὶς ἐν κεφαλαίῳ δεδόσθω λόγος, dv te!
\ , ‘4 , , A \ \
καὶ χώραν καὶ γένεσιν εἶναι τρία τριχῇ καὶ πρὶν
9 \ / ᾽} νῷ , \ aoe
οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι.᾽᾽ Kai’ χώραν τε yap καλεῖ τὴν
ὕλην ὥσπερ ἕδραν ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ ὑποδοχήν," ὃν δὲ τὸ
νοητόν, γένεσιν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου μήπω γεγονότος

? / ” Ἅ Ἁ > a \ 4
οὐδεμίαν ἄλλην ἢ τὴν ἐν μεταβολαῖς Kai κινήσεσιν
οὐσίαν, τοῦ τυποῦντος καὶ τοῦ τυπουμένου μεταξὺ
7 “-- 4 3 ~ \ > A 3
τεταγμένην, διαδιδοῦσαν" ἐνταῦθα τὰς ἐκεῖθεν εἰ-
κόνας. διά τε δὴ ταῦτα μεριστὴ προσηγορεύθη καὶ
Β ὅτι τῷ αἰσθητῷ τὸ αἰσθανόμενον καὶ τῷ φανταστῷ

A 4 3 / ᾿ς 4
τὸ φανταζόμενον ἀνάγκη συνδιανέμεσθαι καὶ συμ-
, ¢ \ > \5 , As oe
παρήκειν: ἡ yap αἰσθητικὴ" κίνησις, ἰδία ψυχῆς
οὖσα, κινεῖται πρὸς τὸ αἰσθητὸν ἐκτός" ὁ δὲ νοῦς

2 A \ 2y>? ες As ; S vl eee
αὐτὸς μὲν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ" μόνιμος ἦν καὶ ἀκίνητος,
ἐγγενόμενος δὲ τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ κρατήσας εἰς ἑαυτὸν
ἐπιστρέφει καὶ συμπεραίνει τὴν ἐγκύκλιον φορὰν
περὶ τὸ μένζον)᾽ ἀεὶ μάλιστα" ψαύουσαν τοῦ ὄντος.
“διὸ καὶ δυσανάκρατος ἡ κοινωνία γέγονεν αὐτῶν,
τῶν ἀμερίστων᾽" τὸ μεριστὸν καὶ τῶν μηδαμῇ κινη-

1 ὅν τε -ἘΠ in margin, Basiliensis; ὄντος -all other mss.
(two dots under τος -B), Aldine.

2 καὶ -mss., Aldine ; omitted by Basiliensis and lacking in
1024 c supra.

3 ὑποδοχεῖν -y-

4 διαδοῦσαν -y (So also r in 1024 c supra).

5 αἰσθητὴ -B.

8 ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ -Laurent. C. S. 180, Marc. Append. IV, 1 (¢/.
Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, p. xvii [so also f, m, r, Escor.
72 in 1024 c supra}).

360

EPITOME OF GEN. OF SOUL, 1032

the account rendered in summation as reckoned
from my calculation, that real existence and space
and becoming were three and distinct even before
heaven came to be.”’ Now, it is matter that he also
calls space, as he sometimes calls it abode and
receptacle, and the intelligible that he calls real
existence ; and what he calls becoming, the universe
not yet having come to be, is nothing other than that
being involved in changes and motions which, ranged
between what makes impressions and what receives
them, disperses in this world the semblances from
that world yonder. For this very reason it was called
divisible and also because it is necessary for that
which is perceiving and that which is forming mental
images to be divided in correspondence with what is
perceptible and with what is imaginable and to be
coextensive with them, for the motion of sense-per-
ception, which is the soul’s own, moves towards what
is perceptible without but the intelligence, while it
was abiding and immobile all by itself, upon having
got into the soul and taken control makes her turn
around to him and with her accomplishes about that
which always remains fixed? the circular motion most
closely in contact with real existence. This is also
why the union of them proved to be a difficult fusion,
mixing the divisibility of the indivisibles and the

¢ It is probable that the epitomizer faithfully copied τὸ

μὲν ἀεὶ from his original; but, if so, he could not have
construed the phrase at all.

7 Wyttenbach from 1024 p supra; τὸ μὲν -Mss. (50 u in
1024 p supra, where f omits μένον altogether).
8 μάλιστα -omitted by B.

9. MSS.3; τῷ ἀμερίστῳ -Stephanus from 1024 ἢ supra.

361

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1032) τῶν' τὸ πάντῃ φορητὸν μιγνύουσα καὶ καταβια-
ζομένη" θάτερον εἰς ταὐτὸν" συνελθεῖν. ἦν δὲ τὸ
4 θάτερον οὐ κίνησις, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ταὐτὸν στάσις,
ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴ διαφορᾶς καὶ ἀνομοιότητος. ἑκάτερον
γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑτέρας ἀρχῆς κάτεισι, τὸ μὲν ταὐτὸν
ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὸ δὲ θάτερον ἀπὸ τῆς δυάδος" καὶ
μέμικται πρῶτον ἐνταῦθα περὶ τὴν ψυχήν, ἀριθ-
μοῖς καὶ "λόγοις συνδεθέντα καὶ μεσότησιν ἐναρμο-
νίοις, καὶ ποιεῖ θάτερον μὲν ἐγγενόμενον τῷ ταὐτῷ"
διαφορὰν τὸ δὲ ταὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ τάξιν, ὡς δῆλόν
ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς πρώταις τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεσιν' εἰσὶ
δὲ αὗται τὸ κριτικὸν καὶ τὸ κινητικόν. ἡ μὲν οὖν
κίνησις εὐθὺς ἐπιδείκνυται περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐν μὲν
τῇ ταὐτότητι τὴν ἑτερότητα τῇ περιφορᾷ τῶν ἀ-
D πλανῶν ἐν δὲ τῇ ἑτερότητι τὴν ταὐτότητα τῇ τάξει
τῶν πλανήτων" ἐπικρατεῖ γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις τὸ ταὐ-
τὸν ἐν δὲ τοῖς περὶ γῆν τοὐναντίον. ἡ δὲ κρίσις
ἀρχὰς μὲν ἔχει δύο, τόν τε νοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ
πρὸς τὰ καθόλου καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου
πρὸς τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα. μέμικται δὲ λόγος ἐξ ἀμ-
φοῖν, νόησις ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς καὶ δόξα γινόμενος ἐν
τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὀργάνοις τε μεταξὺ φαντασίαις τε
καὶ μνήμαις χρώμενος, ὧν τὰ μὲν ἐν τῷ ταὐτῷ"
τὸ ἕτερον τὰ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ποιεῖ τὸ ταὐτόν. ἔστι
γὰρ ἡ μὲν νόησις κίνησις τοῦ κινοῦντος περὶ τὸ
1 mss. (τὸ . .. κινητὸν -t [Urb. 100], Laurent. 80, 5) ;

μηδαμῇ κινητῷ -Stephanus from 1024 pv supra (where r ai
κινητὸν). 2 καταβιαζομένου -α (3).

8 ταυτὸ -B, Laurent. C. S. 180.

4 EF; τῷ αὐτῷ -all other mss.

5 πλανων (with 47 superscript over vw) -a!; πλανήτων -all

other mss.

6 ἘΠ superscript over αὐτῶ : αὐτὸ -Vat. Reg. 80; αὐτῶ
-all other mss.

362

EPITOME OF GEN. OF SOUL, 1032

thorough transience of the utterly immobile* and
constraining difference to unite with sameness.
Difference is not motion, however, as sameness is not
rest either, but the principle of differentiation and
dissimilitude. In fact, each of the two derives from
another of two principles, sameness from the one and
difference from the dyad ; and it is first here in the
soul that they have been commingled, bound to-
gether by numbers and ratios and harmonious means,
and that difference come to be in sameness produces
differentiation but sameness in difference order, as is
clear in the case of the soul’s primary faculties.
These are the faculties of discernment and motivity.
Now, directly in the heaven motion exhibits diversity
in identity by the revolution of the fixed stars and
identity in diversity by the order of the planets, for
in the former sameness predominates but its opposite
in the things about the earth. Discernment, how-
ever, has two principles, intelligence proceeding
from sameness to universals and sense-perception
from difference to particulars ; and reason is a blend
of both, becoming intellection in the case of the
intelligibles and opinion in the case of the per-
ceptibles and employing between them mental
images and memories as instruments, of which the
former are produced by difference in sameness and
the latter by sameness in difference. For intellection
is motion of the mover ® about what remains fixed,

α The nonsense of this clause is the result of the epito-
mnizer’s reading as genitive plurals the dative singulars of
1024 p supra, a mistake that he made in 1031 Ἑ supra also.

Ὁ This is the epitomizer’s own mistake for ‘ motion of
what is cognizing ᾿᾿ (1024 ¥ supra).

7 κινοῦντος -MSS.; νοοῦντος -Leonicus from 1024 F supra.

363

PLUTARCH’S MORALIA

(1032) μένον, ἡ δὲ δόξα μονὴ τοῦ αἰσθανομένου περὶ τὸ
κινούμενον" φαντασίαν δὲ συμπλοκὴν δόξης πρὸς
E αἴσθησιν οὖσαν ἵστησιν ἐν μνήμῃ τὸ ταὐτὸν τὸ δὲ
θάτερον κινεῖ πάλιν ἐν διαφορᾷ τοῦ πρόσθεν καὶ
νῦν, ἑτερότητος ἅμα καὶ “ταὐτότητος ἐφαπτόμενον.
6. Δεῖ δὲ τὴν περὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κόσμου γενο-
μένην. σύνταξιν' εἰκόνα λαβεῖν τῆς ἀναλογίας ἐν ἧ
διηρμόσατο τὴν' ψυχήν. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἦν ἄκρα τὸ
πῦρ καὶ ἡ γῆ, χαλεπὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα κραθῆναι
φύσιν ἔχοντα μᾶλλον δὲ ὅλως ἄκρατον καὶ ἀσύ-
στατον' ὅθεν ἐν μέσῳ θέμενος αὐτῶν τὸν “μὲν ἀέρα
πρὸ τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ πρὸ τῆς γῆς, ταῦτα
πρῶτον ἀλλήλοις ἐκέρασεν εἶτα διὰ τούτων ἐκεῖνα
πρός τε ταῦτα καὶ ἀλληλα συνέμιξε καὶ συνήρμο-
Ε σεν. ἐνταῦθα δὲ πάλιν τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ τὸ θάτερον,
ἐναντίας δυνάμεις καὶ ἀκρότητας ἀντιπάλους, συν-
ἤγαγεν οὐ διὰ αὑτῶν," ἀλλ᾽ οὐσίας ἑτέρας, μεταξύ,
τὴν μὲν ἀμέριστον πρὸ" τοῦ ταὐτοῦ πρὸ" δὲ τοῦ
θατέρου τὴν μεριστήν, ἔστιν ἧ προσήκουσαν ἑκα-
τέραν ἑκατέρᾳ τάξας εἶτα μιχθείσαις ἐκείναις ἐπ-
εγκεραννύμενος, οὕτως τὸ πᾶν συνύφηνε τῆς ψυχῆς
εἶδος, ὡς ἦν ἀνυστόν, ἐκ διαφόρων ὅμοιον ἔκ τε
πολλῶν Ev" ἀπεργασάμενος .ὃ

tomas. 4 σύντηξιν -Bernardakis from 1025 a supra.
2 τὴν “MSS. 3 omitted in 1025 a supra.
3 MSS.; καὶ πρὸς ἄλληλα -1025 A-B supra.
4. αὐτῶν “as Laurent. C. S. 180, Aldine.
. πρὸς -Vat. Reg. oy
8 πρὸς -Vat. Reg. 8
7 év-n3 ἕνα - -Laurent. (.».5..180ς ited by Aldine.
8 MSS. ; ᾿ἀπειργασμένος - -1025 B supra (ἀπειργασάμενος -f).

~ @ The erroneous ἐφαπτόμενον (in 1025 a supra emended
to ἐφαπτομένην), which without doubt was in the Ms. ex-
cerpted by the epitomizer as it is in all the extant mss. of the

364

EPITOME OF GEN. OF SOUL, 1032

and opinion fixity of what is perceiving about what
is in motion; but mental imagining, which is a
combination of opinion with sense-perception, is
brought to a stop in memory by sameness and by
difference again set moving in the distinction of past
and present, being in contact with® diversity and
identity at once.

6. The construction® that was carried out in the
case of the body of the universe must be taken as a
likeness of the proportion with which he regulated
the soul. In the former case, because there were
extremes, fire and earth, of a nature difficult to
blend together or rather utterly immiscible and
incohesive, he accordingly put between them air in
front of the fire and water in front of the earth and
blended these with each other first and then by
means of these commingled and conjoined those
extremes with them and each other. And in the
latter case again he united sameness and difference,
contrary forces and antagonistic extremes, not just
by themselves ; but by first interposing other beings,
the indivisible in front of sameness and in front of
difference the divisible, as each of the one pair is in
a way akin to one of the other, and by then making
an additional blend with those between after they
had been commingled he thus fabricated the whole
structure of the soul, from what were various making
it as nearly uniform and from what were many as
nearly single as was feasible.

treatise, could agree only with τὸ θάτερον (“* difference’) and
taken with this produces nonsense.

» This mistake for “fusion” (σύντηξιν), which occurs in
one ms. of the treatise also, may have been in the ms. ex-
cerpted by the epitomizer.

365

eT A Sai ἀὐγέδι
a κι" ΟΣ ΤΥ ΟΣ τ te ‘
ἂν : ty oe ee κι ys ἢ

+
συ.

Lene

ἍΕῚ

ei

yan A
ile as, τρις Τῶν
as itt
areas goa
fou. Ἔ Ὁ Mt
oh. ων: ὦ

γα. αν. ; i
ἢ

nd ye ee Se >
- ὺ ᾿ a ,
| my ὡ ; ἢ
Sy
fe “Ὡς δ ary
τω ᾿
αὶ ὩΣ de A ὮΝ
| ἡ de Pe. iy
᾿ + ae Se τ" Th
AE χὶ . re.
οἱ ΔῊΝ hing. ΚΎΩΝ
᾿ ; ν
ee ;
vic hess
τ a va 7
"τὺ Le
Ade NPGS)
a a
1 a
᾿
J A
Af
a
| “me
¥ ᾽
if a
ἢ ὦ
if a
| } ἢ vi ; PR 'e
Ἷ Ἢ oe
᾿ | *» “a eae . 7. AD | yl ἡ νν
ia : Ae TL Sit CPT νλῖναι
ΠῚ ω i ha),
4
4
.
| o
τῳ, ἵ
: buy
q
Suit

pre - ce i ae; WE ἢ oa nek

aay. pu Pas!
ἣν on oe ΑΝ
ae

᾿
t's

" FU cs
ἐφ ων ὧν Pill A a Wiss

’ wy 7
᾿ Π
via’ ane a alts ἐλ ep " 2¢
Pa) wane ᾿
; ! yy sa
Π ἊΝ Ρ ᾿ aay 3 ᾿
Fi Ἢ : “»
a iy Ω ‘ py 79s ga i 5
fi i ΄ A; 4 rte |
ey
= ¥ f 7
. ᾿ ἐ
i,
᾿ ἱ

A,
Ὁ
f
i Prd !
νὼ A
Ἶ͵ ν.
--
- in
1
- i
- ᾿
'
2 } /;
4
Ἧ " -
=
'
ἢ -
9 ἢ
‘ ak
y -
- |
' ψ
' j 4
[ΠῚ I
᾿ ᾿ Ay is ry
fs
+
ἌΝ
Lae

inlet iN ΒΝ [ΩΣ ει ἢ ἡ Va Wn ial es, hy
᾿ ihe a eat ΠΝ save ἫΝ Fig hay’)
i ἕ ΝῊ τ ’

+) \
᾿ τ 7 ey Pan, f fi Ape

νι,
i ς ἫΝ ᾿ Wet ‘a “ τς ἱ
iM Bi SOC Het Ων
"ἢ πο ἢ
il 7 Me ho an tek a he
ane 9 Ύ f

Mt 7 he her . “asi
iil ) Τὴ J ἦν
᾿ - ; J g a ‘ P [
i : Lu,

ii

in| !

Ἢ = ee
A , afte

ts i 7 }

iH

ie

||

᾿ r¥
i i

|

1h)

] ‘ ᾿

| ΄-

Hil!

}}}
i)
iy

\\

I

H

᾿ ; του:

Ι

Hi]

| ᾿ y
1h}

ἣ (

Ht my A) i \

|

i

|

] ‘

| “ Ν

Ai, ®

᾿

|
bef {

ey

"ἢ

| 2

| | )

|;

|

a

The Loeb Classical Library is the only existing
series of books which, through original text
and English translation, gives access to all that
is important in Greek and Latin literature. A
list of titles is available from Harvard Univer-
sity Press and at www.hup.harvard.edu/loeb.

LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY isa registered trademark of the
President and Fellows of Harvard College.

ISBN-13:
ISBN-10:

|
4°?80b 74

978-O-b?4-99470-b
O-674-99470-1

40000

594706